Arts and Aesthetics

21

Arts and Aesthetics

Human knowledge includes four different viewpoints on art:

1-Purely scientific viewpoint: Direct contact of the senses with realities. At times, physical devices may also assist our senses in contacting the facts around us. Science uses the senses and the necessary equipment to discover laws.

2-Theoretical viewpoint: In any branch of science, there are some unsolved, unproven issues called theoretical problems. For example, one of the theoretical issues of physics is whether electrons are waves or matter. We do not exactly know which one they are, so such problems cannot be considered as purely scientific.

3-Philosophical viewpoint can be categorized into three types:

a)general information of the primary results and products of science;

b)issues pertaining to the origin of the universe, not observable reality;

c)issues related to values, including the "Do’s and Don’ts" of moral ethics. 

4-The religious viewpoint consists of recognizing and accepting realities and acting in accordance with them – provided that, of course, such a recognition and acceptance be man’s duty, and guide him toward the aim of his life. The religious viewpoint enables goal-seeking man to associate the scientific, theoretical and philosophical viewpoints with each other, and find them non-contradicting.

Four Various Viewpoints on Art

Art, another component of human life, can also be viewed from the four angles mentioned above:

1-The purely scientific point of view considers the observable outcomes of art and their content.

2-The theoretical viewpoint studies the role of the artist’s personal senses in his work compared to the role of reality.

3-The philosophical point of view takes the fundamental aspects of art into consideration. 

4-The religious viewpoint consists of the knowledge of art and making use of it in order to achieve the evolutionary ends of life.

The Philosophical Viewpoint on Art

Here, we will only focus on discussing philosophical views on the arts. There are several points to keep in mind about philosophical analyses of art:

1-Most people and even many artists, consider the work of art as a device to merely impress people and satisfy them aesthetically. Many people only expect a work of art to stir a few waves inside them. However, the revolution inside the audience or spectators of works of art should be the start of an evolutionary metamorphosis in their character. The true artist does not tend to fascinate people, or stir up their feelings. 

2-By means of the work of art, the artist makes contact with other human beings’ souls, for a work of art can only have value to people; no animal is capable of enjoying or using it correctly. Hence, we may conclude that a work of art should be advantageous to both the artist’s and the people’s souls.

If an artist considers his/her work of art effective in the development or degradation of other human beings, he/she will use all of his/her mental and spiritual talents in order to create a work of art that can help mankind flourish and develop. 

Although an artist uses abstraction and imagination on observable facts and mental concepts to create a work of art, many artists unfortunately only pay attention to the work of art itself, and ignore the modification, adjustment and activation of their own mental and psychological powers and potentials which should be the factor creating the work of art. If man's innate talents are discovered and devised properly, his feelings are purified and his works of art will be much more valuable. When an artist moves on the path toward perfection, his potentials are properly activated, his emotions elevated, and the work of art he creates will definitely help the progress and perfection of mankind, not just excite them momentarily.

3-Art for art's sake or art for man's sake? There are two different viewpoints on an artist's relationship with people.

a)Some believe that art is virtually desirable, for art conveys the genius of the artist, and no law or criterion should confine it. Limiting art will inhibit the artist's genius, for it is not his concern what effect his work will have on others. The artist's creativity should not be influenced for the sake of others. These people believe that "being interesting" is more important than the truth. It is sufficient that a work of art is appealing; whether it harms or helps others is of no importance. It should only entertain.

b)Some others believe that art, like other mental products of man, is for the society to use, so harmful works of art should not be displayed in public. This theory claims that art belongs to the society, not to art or the artist himself. 

Art should belong to man – "human art for humans", or "art for man in an intelligible life." Thus, whether the society accepts the work of art or not is not enough. A work of art accepted in one society may be rejected by another; the proper criterion is man's development and perfection. 

If an artist is not internally purified, his work of art may be not only of no use to man, but even harmful. Every artist creates his works of art by means of his own mental perceptions and internal tendencies. If Thomas Hobbes, for instance, were asked to produce a work of art about man, his pessimistic point of view would definitely dominate the result.

This is due to man's ultra-artistic value and the significance of the human soul.

Although some poems by poets such as Abul-Ala Moayyeri, some quadrants pertaining to Khayyam, and some of Sadegh Hedayat's writings are literarily quite interesting, the more interesting thing is the human souls which, having read such works, fall into deep anxiety, and end up in nihilism. On the other hand, Jalal-addin Mohammad Molawi (Rumi) poetry has saved thousands from nihilism toward God. Thus, unless minds are not purified and refined by correct education and training, "art for the sake of art," although opening the way for activating genius, is absolutely unacceptable, for it may activate the genius of some illogical minds. 

We must mention intelligible life here, for art should serve man in an intelligible life, not merely serve man. Otherwise, anyone, especially politicians, would begin to interpret humanity with his own mental perceptions. This is where all the various points of view and interpretations arise.

Human art for humans means not censoring art, but supporting man's intelligible life. Studying works of art should not be limited to form and appearance; content is also highly significant. Of course, in truly original art, "appearance, form, content, appeal and reality" make a single unit. A work of art that looks beautiful but is corrupt content-wise is not acceptable. For example, if a filmmaker makes a movie defying man's freedom and free will, and skillfully proves that internal freedom does not exist, and that the only existent authority is that of law and power, will that make an acceptable work of art? Art in the West nowadays only serves to provide people's lives with variety and amusement, not to contribute to any development or to guide them toward an intelligible life. Do worthless works of art that show sex guide man toward perfection – or doom?