Is there something between a pure 'functionality' and a pure aesthetic appreciation? Is this just another version of the ongoing tension-one that is, perhaps, more acute in the west-between materialism and spirituality, pragmatism and idealism or is it something more localized, something like the divorce between craftsmanship and art?
'It's great to love by the spirit, to testify by day for eternity, only what's spiritual in people's minds. But sometimes I'm fed up with my spiritual existence. Instead of forever hovering above I'd like to feel a weight grow in me to end the infinity and to tie me to earth.'
'A woman on the street folded her umbrella while it rained and let herself get drenched.'
~~~
The portrait of this situation is Van Gogh. The sunflower, the chair and the boots that are the chance receptacle of all that homeless energy of the spirit which once had its lawful house with Giotto's angels-once a king of kingdoms, now a squatter in boots. Look at this bough of almond blossom, look at this chair-indeed, they get much more than their due of the spirit, almost bursting with its superfluity.
---Heller.
~~~
Roxana raises the fascinating question: is there anything necessary to such a disjunction? Isn't it true, after all, that the turn to the ordinary, the re-focusing of our attention on the world, has led to an appreciation of the simple, plain, ordinary life along with the everyday objects that make up a part of it?
Or is there in reality a "second turning inwards" (Arendt) and, if so, how does that sit with the previous contention? Are ordinary objects on the verge of turning into the banal, the fragmentary, when not charged with any greater significance?
If anything I think modern trends make it more difficult for us to invest too much meaning or see much beauty in ordinary objects:
1. Mass production. Producing beautiful objects on such a wide scale almost seems impossible. Is that why hand-crafted objects are considered luxury items for a niche market?
2. Technology: when we think of beautiful objects is there, lurking in the background, the mysterious presence of human hands? What happens when "hands" became a synonym for labour?
4. Speed: Is there now a greater emphasis on turnover, on producing rapidly new goods? If so, the very notion of durability sits uneasy with the profit motive and with other trends in modern thought.
5. "De-materialization" : in contrast to the earlier points, is it the case that over the last 30 years or so capital itself has become not only more fluid but more intangible? Does value reside in the immaterial? (the crisis of capitalism).
6. To what extent does craftsmanship depend on supporting institutions? Here one could perhaps include the guilds but, more generally, the ideas an practices embodied in Tradition and religion.
7. Utilitarianism: questions of beauty or truth get reduced to: how useful is something? In response to that view art sets itself up as totally "useless" to prevent itself from being 'tainted' by commercial standards, the market and the view of philistines. There is the realm of "pure" ideas and art for art's sake, "pure" research, contemplation, and then there is the realm of worldly affairs.
'It's great to love by the spirit, to testify by day for eternity, only what's spiritual in people's minds. But sometimes I'm fed up with my spiritual existence. Instead of forever hovering above I'd like to feel a weight grow in me to end the infinity and to tie me to earth.'
'A woman on the street folded her umbrella while it rained and let herself get drenched.'
~~~
The portrait of this situation is Van Gogh. The sunflower, the chair and the boots that are the chance receptacle of all that homeless energy of the spirit which once had its lawful house with Giotto's angels-once a king of kingdoms, now a squatter in boots. Look at this bough of almond blossom, look at this chair-indeed, they get much more than their due of the spirit, almost bursting with its superfluity.
---Heller.
~~~
Roxana raises the fascinating question: is there anything necessary to such a disjunction? Isn't it true, after all, that the turn to the ordinary, the re-focusing of our attention on the world, has led to an appreciation of the simple, plain, ordinary life along with the everyday objects that make up a part of it?
Or is there in reality a "second turning inwards" (Arendt) and, if so, how does that sit with the previous contention? Are ordinary objects on the verge of turning into the banal, the fragmentary, when not charged with any greater significance?
If anything I think modern trends make it more difficult for us to invest too much meaning or see much beauty in ordinary objects:
1. Mass production. Producing beautiful objects on such a wide scale almost seems impossible. Is that why hand-crafted objects are considered luxury items for a niche market?
2. Technology: when we think of beautiful objects is there, lurking in the background, the mysterious presence of human hands? What happens when "hands" became a synonym for labour?
4. Speed: Is there now a greater emphasis on turnover, on producing rapidly new goods? If so, the very notion of durability sits uneasy with the profit motive and with other trends in modern thought.
5. "De-materialization" : in contrast to the earlier points, is it the case that over the last 30 years or so capital itself has become not only more fluid but more intangible? Does value reside in the immaterial? (the crisis of capitalism).
6. To what extent does craftsmanship depend on supporting institutions? Here one could perhaps include the guilds but, more generally, the ideas an practices embodied in Tradition and religion.
7. Utilitarianism: questions of beauty or truth get reduced to: how useful is something? In response to that view art sets itself up as totally "useless" to prevent itself from being 'tainted' by commercial standards, the market and the view of philistines. There is the realm of "pure" ideas and art for art's sake, "pure" research, contemplation, and then there is the realm of worldly affairs.
3 comments:
does art really have to be divorced of every day life? i don't think that is the case any longer, not after the 20th century any way - and there is also the zen-influenced aesthetics in japan, which demands exactly this union between humble everyday activities and art.
i like this passage from Yanagi, the description of a famous bowl of tea:
This single Tea-bowl is considered to be the finest in the world. . . . to contain the essence of Tea. . . .
In 1931 I was shown this bowl in company with my friend, the potter Kanjiro Kawai. For a long time I had wished to see this Kizaemon bowl. I had expected to see that "essence of Tea," the seeing eye of Tea masters, and to test my own perception; for it is the embodiment in miniature of beauty, of the love of beauty, of the philosophy of beauty, and of the relationship of beauty and life. It was within box after box, five deep, buried in wool and wrapped in purple silk.
When I saw it, my heart fell. A good Tea-bowl, yes, but how ordinary! So simple, no more ordinary thing could be imagined. There is not a trace of ornament, not a trace of calculation. It is just a Korean food bowl . . . that a poor man would use everyday. . . .
A typical thing for his use; costing next to nothing . . . an article without the flavour of personality; used carelessly by its owner; bought without pride; something anyone could have bought anywhere and everywhere. . . . The kiln was a wretched affair; the firing careless. Sand had stuck to the pot, but nobody minded; no one invested the thing with any dreams. It is enough to make one give up working as a potter. . . .
But that was as it should be. The plain and unagitated, the uncalculated, the harmless, the straightforward, the natural, the innocent, the humble, the modest: where does beauty lie if not in these qualities? The meek, the austere, the unornate—they are the natural characteristics that gain man's affection and respect.
Thanks for the quote. but..1931! and today?
You may be right..i dunno. My two cents worth would be: in an age of mass production and speed (where everything that lasts is not desirable)I think there are less chances of what you're saying being correct.
Also, to what extent do the crafts need to be influenced by, or wedded to, a tradition or religion?
Also, is there now a greater emphasis on "dematerialization"-especially in the digital age?
I don't think there is anything "necessary" here. Just taking up a point once made by george steiner: is there a real tension between revelation and history, body and soul, matter an spirit (or, more to the point: is this tension more pronounced in the modern west?)
Even in academia we see the same divide..."useless knowledge" vs useful knowledge, theoria vs practice.
And ten there's the pervasive influence of utilitarianism which tends to say: don't ask if something is beautiful or true, only if it is useful or not. and as a kind of reaction to that art must serve no social purpose and only be true to itself.
of course, that's a caricature, but maybe there's some truth to it.
b.
hmmm i must ponder all this - and the new questions you added!!! :-)
but it is raining without end and i can't seem to focus on such "serious" questions, rain always makes me languid somehow, dreaming of self-dissolution, but quietly, somehow peacefully wishing for melting away... well, if the rain is quiet, thunderstorms are quite another matter :-)
Post a Comment