I thought that this article was interesting. It's about the value of art education and how it can be interperted. I wonder how a Marxist would reply to the ending statement that, "art is the lie that is made true". The book says that Marxists believe that, "truth is dependent on the concepts that one's culture makes available" (47). Is our value of art controlled by the dominate culture or are our views on art and beauty of our own conception?
http://www.vusst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/aesthetic.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have to say being involved with art on any level means being able to defend what one does. Art, like music and physical education, have long been victims of the school budget, because people do not tend to agree on their validity or place in schools. If you want to paint, sing or play softball let some one else foot the bill seems to be the going rate. However, to say that art should be measured and/or taught in regard to its aesthetic value alone is almost insulting. Art has many purposes, and to teach art is an opportunity to open the world to students. Yes, I do want students to see the beauty in art, and be able to think about it critically in terms of the elements and principles of design. This is perhaps what the author was referring when she made reference to teaching taste. However, teaching art also teaches such skills as problem solving and constructive criticism. Also, the art room is often a place for students to express themselves in a safe manner as well as allowing some students who do not excell in such areas as math, science or reading and writing to gain confidence by way of alternate avenues. Value is a concept that is as much personal as cultural. A card my grandmother wrote only has value to me, but an antique armoire has value according only to what some one else places on it. Who is to say what is or is not valuable? I think the media has a great influence on trends, but control seems a little severe for me.
Excellent link and questions, Rebecca.
The Allan Bloom/traditional aesthetics answer to you last question is "neither". While anyone would argue that our culture influences what we like and value, Bloom would say that's a bad thing, as it distracts us from what is actually valuable. The Marixist would say it's all culturally controlled, so that's one position. Many of us say (as you allude to in your question and Angie says in her comments) that we, as individuals, determine what is beautiful (a sort of artistic relativism).
But that's not what the article (or someone like Bloom) argues. The traditional position is that aesthetic education teaches us to recognize what is actually beautiful and valuable. We get distracted by culture and preoccupied by our own prejudices, but aesthetic education can change that. It can give us "taste" which, fundamentally, is recognizing when actual beauty is present and when it is not.
If value or aesthetic merit is subjective, then we have to say there is not real aesthetic difference between the song "Low" (which I hear all the time now on the radio or at the gym and this have it stuck in my head, yet actively detest, and John Coltrane's "A Love Supreme"). We can say we like one better than the other, but don't we want to say more than that. I know I want to say Coltrane is BETTER than sexually suggestive, demeaning pop music. And I want to say people should recognize that.
Post a Comment