Unlike Plato, Aristotle sees art (including music, dance, literature, painting, and sculpture) as representational. He claims that we see art as pleasurable in the sense of the virtue in which it is represented. So when you view something that looks very aesthetically pleasing, and you can’t understand why, this is a good explanation. I can understand how a painting, or a sculpture is representational; but what about music? Music without lyrics is nothing more than tones, strung together in melody and sometimes harmony to produce a coordinated noise that we find pleasing. Can it represent the pain of a wronged lover, or the joy of a new season? How do we distinguish between these? Beauty is certainly in the eye (or ear) of the beholder, especially when it comes to music.
When it comes to poetry, or literature produced in a play or opera, Aristotle argues that a more successful tragedy has a wronged character that an audience can identify with. This can explain why women can relate to stories about a woman being wronged by a man and thus the phrase, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” came from. Also, this would explain why men relate to a story about a man who tragically loses his family and seeks vengeance.
It’s amazing how each philosopher makes a legitimate case for their view of art. Beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder, but how do we determine what art is more beautiful than another? When I have kids, my little girls’ drawing of her and her daddy – to me – is going to be so much more beautiful than any Monet or Picasso. Maybe there is something there…
No comments:
Post a Comment