Reflection 1 Long

To what extent is representation an essential function of artworks?

1000 WORDS

After reading some of the relevant philosophic texts and engaging in class discussion, I would say that not only is representation an essential function of artwork but it is also an inevitable function. It seems to be the case that all things that we define as art will always act as a way to represent some object, concept, or idea. The basic reason for this is due to individual humans giving subjective meanings to works of art. Without these meanings or, let’s say, if a work of art had no meaning to a person, he/she would not find value in it. A quote by Kristeller in the introduction of the textbook captures one of the reasons why humans consider representation in art, “It is my purpose here to show that this system of the five major arts… is of comparatively recent origin and did not assume definite shape before the eighteenth century.” (Cahn and Meskin 4). Here Kristeller is claiming that our modern ideas of what define art has changed from what it used to be. He also gives examples of how art has included new areas and excluded others. I believe this mirrors the ways in which humans have come to place meaning in art through representation. As time has marched forward we have reshaped our ideas of what can be called art, and in doing so have accepted that much of what we see can in some way be a work of art. This mental evolution of sorts has imprinted into our modern perceptions of art where we now look at a piece to find what it’s meaning is, what it represents so that we can more fully understand and appreciate it.

I have explained one of the primary ways in which representation is essential to artwork so now I must explain myself when I say that representation is unavoidable when considering artworks. What I mean when I say that representation is inevitable is that when a work of art is created, that work of art will ultimately represent something regardless of what the artist intended or what any individual might think. This is partially a result of what was said earlier about individuals attaching their own subjective meanings to works of art. This; however, is also a result of the concept of mimesis. We discussed in class that the term mimesis should have two English translations: one of them being imitation and the other representation. Both translations are useful for understanding what the Greek word means although imitation seems to have a negative constituent attached which suggests inferiority. Regardless of which translation of the word is used it still is the case that art cannot escape the act of representation, or imitation. In Book X of The Republic, Plato provides an interesting explanation as to why this is the case, “Well, here we have three sorts of couches, of which one exists in nature, and this we shall attribute, if I am not mistaken, to the workmanship of god… The second is made by the carpenter… and the third is the production of the artist.” (Cahn and Meskin 25). In this quote, and the argument that follows, Plato is saying that there exists three concepts of a couch. The first and most governed by truth is the idea of the couch, after which the carpenter imitates that to make a particular couch, and even further the painter creates an image of a particular couch. Plato’s theory of forms is, of course, not perfect but we can understand why art always comes to represent something or other by using his theory. The critical thinker must believe that there is some “essence” which is captured in real objects that cannot fully be explained unless one thinks of a particular object; however, he/she knows that there is something which defines said object. Next the critical thinker must also admit that artwork tends to capture the image of a real object (for now let us consider painting). At this we arrive at the heart of the argument, namely that art on the basic level is always at least trying to represent the image it is portraying.

Even though art seeks to represent, or even imitate, real objects in the world should not make one think that art is a lesser activity in some way. The stigma that imitation is inherently negative is very misleading when trying to critically consider art as a mental production, and this is why translating mimesis as representation is a better approach. In the account of Aesthetics by Benedotto Croce he begins by separating art from the other mental productions such as philosophy, history, and the natural sciences. He claims that art is not any of these things and yet we see that art contains components relevant to each. (Cahn and Meskin 271). Art has taken on many forms and many roles over the centuries and continues to expand upon and include old and new ideas. I believe that the evolving views on “what is art?” is in part due to the habit of the individual to find meaning in art through the use of figuring out what a specific work of art represents, either to themselves or to the artist. For humans to truly engage in the mental production of art we must find value in it, which cannot be accomplished if we are given the work of art alone. We see, then, that representation serves a vital role in that it is more or less required in some form or another to successfully engage art properly.