1.2Reflection Paper (L)

Nancun Yu

PR. Kyle Grady

PHIL 330: Aesthetics

9^th, Sept. 2014

1.2Reflection Paper (L)

       After reading Plato’s Republic and Croce’s Aesthetics. Once more, what is the substantive role of arts? In previous discussions I took for granted that the all-important role of artworks is enlightening people (It also required to be registered). Nevertheless, in this respect there are three questions challenge the belief of art as medium to teach. 1). Do artworks really teach people anything? 2). Should we take the knowledge refrained from feelings equally obvious as knowledge told from reasons? 3). Should the practice of Aesthetics be considered as another way proceeding philosophy. Otherwise, should Aesthetics be considerate as some similar subject related to philosophy.

       According to Plato’s believe in Republic artworks can be unsafe if we take them as teaching methods. Plato claims that art involving with sense perception other than pure reasoning. As he described artworks (poetry in original dialog) seems to maim the reasoning of those hearers who do not possess an antidote in the knowledge of its real nature. (Aesthetics 24 b6) This questioned can artworks really teach people something or it merely produces an illusion about learning. From Plato’s perspective, the medium artworks uses in teaching are unrealistic. Those who attempted to read the meaning carries with the artworks have to first falling into unrealistic them in order to render it. Furthermore, Plato claims the painter only study the plain nature of visual aspects. (Aesthetics 26 b3) He accuses artist only learns a small constituent of an object by bending it into a painting and clearly that made the use of the artist no better than craftsman. However, there are some question about definition of teaching and learning. It seems clearly identical that many people assigned numerous different ideas under the same epithet. Granted that the knowledge from pure logical thinking are more absolute. Merely, it does not take in the knowledge refrained from other than reasoning non-cognition. It appears more consistent to measure different sort of knowledge by level instead of preventing them becoming knowledge. Knowledge should be as broad as any other things. As long as a thing appeal to be logical and involve with reasoning process people should yield it a chance to reconstruct it into knowledge. Despite the fact that we logically agreed truth cannot refrain from unrealistic, just like people cannot turn injustice into justice by using unjust ways, in order to considering artworks unrealistic there must be a comparative “real” existed objects the paint represents. Although, it seems less obviously that many paintings seems “represents” another real object. In fact, the essential function of artworks are not “represents”. Furthermore, artworks should not represent any object other than itself. The role of art is to reconstruct and recreated existed object, but not to copy it. Art should present something other than representing a theme. By thinking this way, artworks become an existing thing that stands alone for itself and meaning itself.

       Again, there are many ways of learning. Many people agreed the term learning does not limit itself to being taught in classrooms. The practice of learning can be practiced in anywhere and anytime. For example, should experiences be considerate as a process of learning? Clearly yes, or otherwise the entire scientific experimental figure should be viewed as a joke. As we all logically agree to do experiments should be viewed as another way of learning we must correspondingly agree that experience teaches people. Nevertheless, learning should also be viewed as self-governed concept. In the spirit of empiricism, everything we experienced are the basic source to turn into knowledge. Even know experience must go through intuition and expression so to be called knowledge. To gain experience is obviously a process of learning. After all, should emotional change be considerate as gain experience? The answer is yes. If we accepted the fact that people can only practice reasoning base on sensation and memory. We must also accept the purified reasoning sadly does not exist in human itself. The reasoning part we called in our daily lives are based upon emotions. Therefore, artworks really can be the medium use of enlightening people. As long as the viewer look at the artworks and emotionally affected by the work, the viewer had “learned” the emotional experience of the artworks.

        Many people might argue that art cannot teach people equally well as philosophy. Furthermore, people argue practice Aesthetics cannot help people on the way persuading philosophical truth. In fact, it is correct. The practice of Aesthetics obviously cannot challenge philosophical beliefs on pure reasoning and may not even be able to contribute to the practice of reasoning. However, in order to make the contrast we must assume that Aesthetics are subjects belongs to philosophy and it is similar. But, according to Croce Art is clearly not philosophy. As he describes in his Aesthetics, art did not and hopefully will not involve with purposes. Although he agrees art cannot ignore logic and concepts Croce also told the logic of art should be different than philosophic logic. For Croce, philosophy, practices rational thoughts, but art practice emotional feelings.

       After all the essential function of art should be getting people emotionally affected and enlightening people from emotional feelings. Clearly enlightening, but not teaching is because not everybody will possibly affect and even they had affected, as long as they did not move forwards to intuition stage the process itself should not be called as learning. As artist saved no more power on to artwork after being constructed/composed/painted. Artworks do not contain the ability to make a change by itself unless the outside society changes. As a result, that also allows multiple interoperation to be put on the same painting in different generations.