The discourse on valuation or value in Art opens one of the branches of philosophy regarding The Theory of Value/Beauty, which is 'Aesthetics'. Etymologically, originating from the Greeks 'aisthesthai' (Perceive), 'aistheta' (Perceptible Things), and 'aisthetikos' (Perception by the Sense). Revived by the German Philosopher Kant as 'Asthetisch' (The Science which treats of the Condition of Sensuous Perception) in 18th Century, and popularised by Baumgarten in English as 'Aesthetics' (Criticism of Taste) in the early 19th Century.
The discourse on valuation in Public Art opens a whole place in the philosophy of modern society. This can be trace back to Lefebvre's work on 'Social Space', Soja's and Harvey's work on 'Spatial/Social Justice'. As Lefebvre remarked, the organisation of Space is a crucial dimension of human Societies which influences Social Relation. In 'The Critique of Everyday Life' (1930), Lefebvre mentioned the everyday life dialectically resulting in intersections between 'Illusion and Truth, Power and Helplessness, where it is obvious the Intersection of the Sector Man Controls and the Sector he does not Control'.
In making sense of the course, I would like to take our understanding of Public Art to its fundamental idea as an 'Art for Society', where there is a conflict of interest regarding the Artist/Authority/Artwork/Audience between 'Public realm' and 'Private realm', where the latter is contrast to the former, which is organised in a rather controlled and confined setting, conditioned to the exclusiveness of invitation and admission upon access. Nevertheless, Public Art deals with a whole process of produce and consume beyond this exclusively access norm, Where Art is transcend to Intervened, Interact, Invoke, and Provoke the Audience inclusively. Public Art is to be consumed, albeit of being produced as in the ideas of 'Art for Art Sake'.
What constitute towards the Great Valuation of Public Art?
The principle value of Art is reflected in the 'Aesthetics', concerning with the study of the value/beauty of Art. Baumgarten addressed the issue of 'Taste' of beauty, what is judged beauty, and what is not, thus what constitutes to ones notion of beauty. Rather Kant addresses this issue on a conscious subject, starting with metaphysics, in 'Critique of Pure Reason' (1781). Followed by ethics in the 'Critique of Practical Reason' (1788). Finally on aesthetics in 'Critique of Judgement' (1790), where he deliberately build a dialectic critic that Beauty is not conditioned on objects, it is the unconditioned attributes born from the 'Judgement of Taste' between the Interplay of Intellectual (Knowledge-Physic) and Imagination (Categorical Imperative- Metaphysic). A 'Purposive without Purpose', Which he remarks as one of fundamental principles of beauty. Beauty perceived in the sense of apperception transcended beyond perception.
Beauty which are conditioned by an object are 'pleasure' driven/oriented, which is not 'pure', and is ephemeral (Not lasting), rather than beauty by 'purpose pleasure' which is eternal (Lasting Forever). Kant injected his rationalist paradigm, when he highlighted beauty as not in the object, but beauty is in the mind. Example, someone eagerly wanting to buy a new car, of specific brand and model, his desires, vision, and directions are telling him that this is the most beautiful car he can buy, throughout the situation of time, eventually he will be convinced on other new car models, where his judgment of beauty on the former model is ephemeral. This is because his judgement of beauty on the former was pleasure oriented rather than 'purpose pleasure 'oriented. Albeit, the second example of a person owning his grandfathers antique car, he finds the pleasure in the purpose of the car, despite the physical cosmetics, he has been convinced by the knowledge and purpose (Categorical Imperative) of the car, which brings pleasure to him in a state of eternal beauty. This is the state of 'Transcendental idealism' which makes the human judgement of beauty, more humane as seen on the debates between 'Ergonomics' vs 'Hedonomics' in Product Design.
Categorical Imperative is vital in the rational process of inquiring the value of art (Aesthetics). The importance is simultaneously reciprocal to the 'Biological Imperative' which humankind acknowledged. In the pursuit of biological needs and desire; food/drinks, cloth, shelter, sexual reproduction, which is associated with 'Common Sense', or understand as the biological imperative. In fulfilling the basic human needs, there are means to the end, where humankind will strive to survive at certain point in time. Nevertheless, the judgement of one's decision towards beauty (Aesthetics) could be at the stake of survival, if the poor judgement is opposed towards the identity of one's society or culture. A rich interpretation of beauty (Aesthetics) portrayed upon a particular culture nourishes growth and well-being in the name of enculturation in terms of cultural identity, whereas a poor judgment of beauty results towards the decay of the culture in terms of de-enculturation, defamiliarisation, cultural divergence, and to make matters worse counterculture. A strong symbol can represent power of colonisation, however on the opposite, would represent incompetence of power in the concept of decolonisation. At certain point, categorical imperative is instrumental towards the ethos (credibility) of the subject in an artwork.
In the allegory of the cave (Republic), plato demonstrate the importance of the rational process in the salvation of humankind in this apparent worlds of sense and the world of form (truth). This particular work of plato, demonstrate the pivotal part of categorical imperative in understanding reality, especially in truth of beauty (Aesthetic) itself. In the allegory of the cave, plato addressed how humankind are in chains of the world of sense. The setting of the situation is illustrated where there are humans chained, and facing towards the walls of a cave, where the only source of natural sunlight was one specific hole from the upper-ground. What the humans could see was only their shadows played upon daylight and moonlight from their sense, and all these while they were understanding or making sense out of reality from the shadows. The experience of chasing ones shadow, the faster you chase, the faster it disappears. Plato demonstrated, the phenomena of the world of sense as a reflected reality, casted from the reality of truth. However, he explained on solutions of salvation from the world of sense, which plato remarked if only humankind were to rely upon their sense to understand reality, they would be prisoned by the world of sense forever. Nevertheless, if humankind embrace rational process of reason, to question the existence of their sense by seeking reasons, they would be free from the chains of the world of sense. To this, the only way to connect to the world of form (truth) was reasons itself. Upon what is understand, the world of sense and the world of forms (truth) does contribute an equal concept to pleasure and purpose from Kants categorical imperative, the purposiveness without purpose.
In the dispute dominance of contextualism in valuing Aesthetics through the purpose of content and context; Categorical Imperative, lays its equal contrasting partner of formalism; Significant Form, which speaks apparently the language of pleasure in artwork rather than the subject. The Museum of Art TATE defines and elaborates the art term 'Formalism', as such:
"Formalism describes the critical position that the most important aspect of a work of art is its form-the way it is made and its purely visual aspects - rather than its narrative content or its relationship to the visible world. In painting therefore, a formalist critic would focus exclusively on the qualities of colour, brushwork, form, line, and composition ... Remember, that a picture, before it is a picture of a battle horse, a nude women, or some story, is essentially a flat surface covered in colours arranger in a certain order (Maurice Denis- Definition of Neo Traditionism, 1890)"
Formalism dominated modernism in presence of free will (freedom) and liberty. Kant reaffirmed the link between freedom and goodness in the condition of moral liberty "If we are not free to choose, he argued, then it would make no sense to say we ought to choose path of righteousness". It is in the pursuit of the artists freedom to depart upon narrative content and contextual relationship, in favour of purely visual aspects. At this extend, there are moments in time, where artist even painted forms departed from subjects which does not exist even in existing reality. This is evident in the celebrated modern artwork of 'The Starry Night (1889)', by post-impressionist Van Gogh, where part of the forms were depicted from the subject seen through his asylum room window at 'saint-remy-de-provence', whereas other parts in particular the village settings were from his personal imagination. Nevertheless, formalism was a critical stance in response to the Impressionism and Post-impressionism where emphasis were placed on the purely visual aspects of the work. Mauric Denice, in 1890, on his art theory published a manifesto titled 'Definition of Neo Traditionism', where he profoundly emphasis that Aesthetic pleasure was to be found in the painting itself not its subject. In consequence, formalism embraced in the prevailing of modernism liberated the content and context of conventional themes and subjects in religion, mythology, and aristocracy departed from its predecessors.
'Significant Form' is theory by the British art critic Clive Bell, well known as one of the founders of 'Bloomsbury Group' which set common grounds in arts and design. The theory was explained in Bells book Art (1914), where he begins with the lines "What quality is shared by all objects that provoke our aesthetic emotion?". Which the answer according to bell, is 'significant form'; lines and colours combined in a particular way, certain forms and relations of forms, stir our aesthetic emotions'. Moreover, he remarked that a work of art is deemed of such aesthetic experience, which evokes/provokes the aesthetic emotion, upon the presence of the significant forms. Such experience is subjective towards individual experience, but objective in the form of common form which triggers the faculty of the senses in establishing aesthetic emotions. However, if such aesthetic emotion is subjective by experience but objective in value, we can consider the equal respect in terms of an aesthetic common value, or in other terms 'Significant Form' by Bell. Aristotle in defining 'Common Sense'; common sense is not separate and distinct sense in itself but a mode of perpetual integration. The common sensible were thought to be figure, number, magnitude, movement, and rest (Robinson, 1989). This is where the term 'Aisthetikos' or 'Perception by the Sense' represents in Greek. Nevertheless, in this sense, 'Common Value' can be understand as emotional integration, where the common value which provoke these emotional integration derives from the lines and colours combined in a particular way, certain forms and relations of forms, as mentioned by Clive Bell. In such a way the 'significant' can be subjected towards a common value shared by the audience, whereas the 'form' is objective in the lines, shapes, and compositions of an artwork.
In the pursuit of embracing Aesthetics from the Value Theory, the form presented in an artwork is remarkably debatable on its orientation towards contextualism (purpose), formalism (pleasure), or even both. This narrative brings us upon the literary criticism of Georg Lukacs, a Hungarian Marxist philosopher, in his book 'Soul and Form (1911)' which was translated in German. Lukacs critic on his essays regarded that literary criticism should not be based on the conventionally objective common ground of science (fiction) and artistic work (non-fiction). However he saw that the critics should embrace the metaphysical possibilities of art forms of the Platonist in the form of philosophical interpretation. In doing so, critics can contribute to a more shared common Weltanschauung (worldview) shared by the artist and audience. Moreover, the concept of the 'Soul' as to what Plato defines, as the 'immortal being' which is eternal, and the body sense as the 'mortal becoming' which is ephemeral. Nevertheless, Aristotle defines the soul and body as a compound, like many other such as matter and substance. With the presence of the soul the entity-body is able to experience self-nourishment in the journey of growth and decay. Furthermore the concept of 'Soul and Form' by Georg Lukacs remains slightly similar by name but oppositely different in terms of definition with the Malaysian Laureate artist Syed Ahmad Jamal's understanding of 'Form and Soul'.
'Form and Soul' was a theory written by the Malay artist, art critic, and philosopher, published by Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (Institute of Language and Literature) in 1994. Syed Ahmad Jamal's view on the philosophy of Malay Art, was a demarcation from the earlier work of George Lukas 'Soul and Form' in terms of its regional inclusiveness of the Malaysians National Cultural Identity (National Cultural Congress 1970). Derived from the National Cultural Policy (NCP, 1970); 1) The national culture must be based on the indigenous culture of this region (Malay Archipelago), 2) Suitable elements from the other culture may be accepted as part of the national culture, 3) Islam is an important component in the formulation of the national culture. However, in a multi-ethnic nation of independence, the NCP (1970) remains a debatable topic if viewed wrongly in terms Relativism and Ethnocentrism approach.
Nevertheless, Syed Ahmal Jamal, embraced Aesthetics in an integral compound of presence (form) and essence (soul). In such manner, the essence of the soul is immortal by time which represents the Malaysian Identity, put upon trials and tribulations on the course of acculturation and assimilation by the western colonise imperials, the Malay identity steadfast (immovable) in a sense of an immortal soul. Whereas, the presence of the form symbolise the mortal being of humankind which is subjected to growth and decay (movable), in the journey of life, which is ephemeral. Moreover, the concept which the soul is immortal in a multi-ethnic nation, does not only resembles the belief of Islam, but also those of the buddhist and Hindus. Islam affirms that the soul is immortal and will travel towards the realm of hereafter through the process of resurrection. In the same concept, the Buddhist and Hindus affirms the concept of the soul as immortal, in the process of reincarnation in achieving the state of enlightenment; Hindu (Moksha) and Buddha (Nirvana). On the upper hand, the Malaysian Identity is seen as the soul which governs the form of an artwork, as through the paintings of Syed Ahmad Jamal "Umpan" (1959), “Sirih Pinang” (1982), “Semangat Ledang” (2003), and profoundly his Public Art Sculpture "Puncak Purnama (Lunar Peaks" (1986). His experience in Malaysian art scene from pre-independence towards post-independence acknowledges his credibility in the theory of 'Form and Soul', where 'soul' is the national cultural identity, which is the purpose of being, and 'form' is the ephemeral pleasure of the becoming in the name of Malaysian Aesthetics, in regards of the 'Form and Soul'
Does Aesthetics alone contributes to a Good Quality of Public Art?
Public Art resonates Aesthetic Enhancement. The eternal beauty of Social/Spatial Space, amalgamating aesthetics alone does not comply with 'Social Justice' or 'Spacial Justice'. Where art in the classical was seen funded by the rich patrons for specific reasons/purposes, Art in the modern-contemporary where money is decentralised in the concept of capitalism and tax payer, belongs to the Appointed Authority representing the public. This is where the Artwork does not only speaks the Artist Language, but also the Authority and Sponsors Language. This situation and process does takes conflict of interest between the Authority, Artist, Artwork, Audience, and the questions of 'Aesthetics'?
The process in produce and consume of a Good Quality Public Art does contribute from the factors of 'Function' and 'Uses'. This is where Lefebvre in regard of 'Social Space', mentioned the everyday life results from the dialectic intersections between 'Sector Man Controls' and 'Sector he does not Control'. Which in this course, is seen as sector of 'Function', and sector of 'Use' in Public Art. The functions are the objectives (mission/vision) intended to enculturate certain values by the Authority, Sponsors, and Artist. Whereas the 'Uses' plays a counter-role of the consumer/user, where the Public Art is situated inside the public realm, consisting of both the 'Symbolic Use' and 'Performative Use'. The Symbolical Use is in regard to the Aesthetics shaping Identity of the Public Site, which promotes the elements which represents the host Society, Culture, Tradition, Beliefs, Virtues, and Values. The Performative Use is in regard to the Social Gentrification, Social-Cultural Hallmark, and even Social Intervention where the public does not only connects mentally but also physically with the Art Work. On this, it opens a whole new dialogue on 'Vandalism' and 'Public Property'. On this point, it is clear to realise that Audience reaction is an uncontrollable element in putting an Artwork in Public Realm. The 'City' and 'Citizens' both strives for 'Spacial Justice' in the name of Public.
On this account, It has became clear that the valuation and devaluation of Public Art lays beneath the respective process of produce and consume, functions and uses. The equilibrium between both conflict of interest would result in a Good judgement of Public Art, unconditioned not just by pleasure, but pleasure confined by purpose for the interest of city and citizens. This method is rather idealist, but practical in the sense of todays situation of place and time, where Public Art are produce and consume blatantly, without rationalise purpose towards the city and citizens. Eventually, I hope the Authority consult and create strong connections with academic bodies in addressing the needs between Artwork/Artist/Audience for sake of Public Art, especially in Malaysia.
Thank You
MUSADDIQ MOHAMAD KHALIL
Department of Liberal Studies
UiTM Alor Gajah
PACAQ- UITM RIG 2020
References:
Robinson, D. N. (1989). Aristotle Psychology. New York: Columbia University Press.
Comments
Post a Comment