So it has been a while since i last wrote here, shit happens. Since then several things have happens...
- Spring courses were passed and I got a 3.0 GPA
- I spent 2 weeks touring Italy and Greece with a class
- My parents moved to Big Lake
- I moved into an apartment in St.Cloud
- I have been working in the Psychology Office since I moved to Cloud in early June
- I need to find a job before August so that I can continue to afford to live
So that is what has been happening around me. But the point of this post is to post my final paper for my Aesthetics course this last semester. So here it is, entitled "Art as Experience"
The purpose of this paper is to show the relation of art to politics and to answer several key questions about that relationship. Those questions are, can art be a source of political change? Do artists have moral and political obligations? Should artists be allowed to create anything they want no matter how controversial it is? In answering these questions I hope to use contemporary philosophers to prove art has an effect on politics. That artists do have obligations both moral and political. Finally that artists should not be restricted in their creations, and that artists should take responsibility for the effects of their works of art.
The relation of art to politics. Art is related to politics as it is related to everything. Art is an experience, as are politics, science, daydreams, and intimacy to list a few. We all experience the likes of the items previously mentioned the same as we experience art or politics. This is not to say, however, that what we experience is uniform across all of these “areas”. I use the word “area” in a general sense and to form a kind of hierarchal organization to the different strata’s of experience. I propose that the experiences we have in every area are unique not only to the area, but also to the specifics of the situation and the individual having the experience. I would also say that within each area there are several facets that we can group our experiences into and groups beyond those and groups beyond those. This continues to a point where we are no longer conscious of specific experiences, but instead pull all of our specific experiences into broader way of thinking, creating a belief system of sorts that is based on areas of experience as a whole rather than the singular experience. This is a strong part in the determination of what evokes the reactions we have to new experiences in these particular areas. An example could be having a person shown an image that they consider to be horrifying, but over time and constant exposure they become desensitized to the photo. It can be concluded that their attitude towards that photo has been changed through the experiences they have had. We are therefore shaped by our past experiences lumped together in a sort of general fund.
This also means that the more experience we have in an area, the harder it is to change how we react to new experiences in that area. To use pickles as an example, I do not like pickles. It has been my experience that pickles do not taste good to me, therefore I am reluctant to even try pickles and routinely go out of my way to avoid pickles. It would take a miracle to get me to truly enjoy the taste of pickles. This illustrates my point that the more experience or the larger the pool of experience is, the more difficult it becomes to change the disposition of the individual on matter pertaining to pickles.
Experiences can be grouped into more than one area. Political Art is grouped as Politics and as Art. In this case if we have more negative experiences in the political general fund then positive, the experience could, depending on our experience with art, add to the predominately negative fund of politics and add negative to the fund of art experiences. If the experience fund in art is stronger than that of politics, it could also add to positively to both. The relation between art and politics is that when grouped one of two outcomes is possible.
Can art be the source of political change? As I have outlined above it is very possible for art to affect how politics are viewed and it is equally possible for politics to affect how art is viewed. Benjamin states that “The concepts which are introduced into theory of art in what follows differs from the more familiar terms in that they are completely useless for the purposes of fascism. They are, on the other had, useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in politics of art.” (Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction; Preface page 328, Aesthetics) In the context of Benjamin this quote is a statement that modern forms of reproduction are useless for the goals of fascism but are extremely useful for the goals of communism. In Benjamin’s mind, reproduction removes the Aura of an object and people will not longer be slaves to it which is the end goals of communism, equality and freedom. Also it means that the classical means of artistic expression are more conducive to the end goals of fascism. A negative thing in Benjamin’s eyes. I use this quote in a slightly different way. For making a point in this paper, it means that art does have a significant effect on the political situation. In some cases this is a change for the better and in some it is a change for the worse.
To put this in the context I have outlined above, when art becomes political it will improve the general fund of experience in both art and politics. When Politics become an art or aesthetic it will overall negatively affect the general funds of experience in both art and politics. An example of the politics becoming aesthetic would be “Triumph of the Will”. In the film we see Hitler as a ‘man of the people‘. We see him as the strong father figure that Germany needed. We see how he convinced millions of people to see things from his point of view. While those experiencing that piece of political art may not have been aware of what was happening, they were in fact adding to what most people consider to be negative experiences to their general funds of politics and art. An example of art becoming political would be the portrait of Obama done by DJ Z-Trip (interviewed in “Bomb It”). This was not done at the behest of Democratic Party; it was done because someone felt like expressing themselves. This overall has had a very positive affect on both the recent election and feelings in general towards Obama. When I see this piece of art I feel inspired, hopeful, at peace. These are positive experiences that I associate with politics, specifically Obama, and with art. This is what Marx would say should be the end goal of the people, to make themselves heard and to speak their minds on things that matter. This portrait has positively affected the general funds for both politics and art.
Do artists have moral or political obligations? My initial reaction is to say that no, artists do not have an obligation either moral or political. But as I take a step back and look at the potential power that the artists hold, I begin to think that maybe they do have obligations. Artists hold in their power the potential, to again use Benjamin, to create a work that has an aura that captivates and enervates (to weaken somebody's physical, mental, or moral vitality) an individual. These are tools of fascism according to Benjamin. I would say, that the power that this places upon the shoulders of artists both the burden of its misuse, and the acclaims of those it helps. To again use “Triumph of the Will”, the director and editor Leni Riefenstahl, in an interview, absolutely refused to talk about her film as Nazi propaganda. She would not accept the burden that her creation was a key factor in the Nazi plan and rise to unquestioned power in Germany. The moral obligation of the artist is to not create a work that you are not willing to stand beside for better or worse.
To the point of artists and a political responsibility, I again will say that yes they do. This obligation is more of an optional one. It again lies in the power to create a work possessed of an aura of entrapment of mind and soul. An artist may chose to use this potential, ability, aura, to further the ideals that they believe in. They must use caution when attempting this due to the fact that they, like everyone else, have only a limited amount of experiences upon which to draw on and can never be sure of the outcome that they create with their work. This then falls back to the moral obligation to be of the purest of intentions and to stand by what you have done and created. To use the Obama portrait by Shepard Fairey, he created this work and the aura it exudes. He stands by what he has done and will continue to do so, even if the man he help to become our president turns out to be one of the worst. The people would understand that when he created this portrait that he had good intentions and could not have foreseen how everything would end. The same leniency could be given to Leni Riefenstahl, but first she must acknowledge her part in the grander scheme of things. Benjamin states that…
Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownership. The traces of the first can be revealed only by chemical or physical analyses which it is impossible to perform on a reproduction; changes of ownership are subject to a tradition which must be traced from the situation of the original.
By this Benjamin means that it has lost its aura of entrapment and the power it has over people. I believe that even reproduced art, as he is talking about, still has the power of the aura. I say this in the sense that while it is not physically there, as with photos of the internet, it exposes more people to it, and with the perfection that we can replicate things today, it will still have the effect on people. I have experienced this with several pictures, specifically Van Gough’s “Café and Terrace”. I can look at that picture almost indefinitely, drawn in by the colors and lines. We can zoom in and possible see the pigments and threads of the canvas. I think I can excuse Benjamin on this for the simple matter that he wrote during WW2 and not in this age of Modern marvels.
Should artists be allowed to produce or say anything their hearts desire, no matter how controversial? I personally believe that the answer to this question is yes. Freedom of thought is the forbearer of creativity which is the forbearer of original thought. Original thought is essential to the advancement of our society both technically and socially. These tie into my statements above, where I say that an artist must be willing to accept the responsibility of their actions and the influence any given piece of theirs has on the outcome of things, both positive and negative. The experiences that their works create in others, either positive or negative, and the lasting impression that their work may leave belong to the artist. It is not as if what they are creating is sentient life as it is with child birth. The works are not like a corporation that is its own legal entity. The work grows and expands because of those who view it and make their ideas known to those around them. These are reasons that an artist should be sure of what they are doing and the possibilities that may result because of their action, or inaction.
Everything is an experience. From art and politics to intimacy and daydreams. Experiences in an area are pool into a general fund that shapes how we react and perceive new experiences in that area. The more we experience in an area the more set we become that we see things as they are. The moral obligation of artists is to be aware of the potential effects that their work may create both good and bad. The political obligation is to use this ability to change, to change things for the better. Artist should be allowed to produce anything they want on the stipulation that they take responsibility for it regardless of the outcome.
If you actually take the time to read this, please let me know what you think.
