Postmodernism: Economic Domination and the Function of Art Does aesthetic creativity relate to or influence reality? Does art possess the capacity to heal society? These questions seem implicit to Walker Percy's understanding of literature and art in general. Literature is a thought-involved process concerned with communication; it selves as a moral guidepost to commend society as well as correct it. Literature represents and describes; it presents readers with a method of articulating and resolving problems in society.
To begin with, what is the definition of art? Art can be anything that expresses something, embodies artistic or aesthetic intention, or demonstrates creative choice. Based on this creator-centric definition, one may claim that art is purely a form of individual expression, and therefore creation of art should not be hindered by ethical consideration. Tattoos as pieces of artwork offer a great example to this issue. However, one may take it from the viewer’s perspective and claim that because art heavily involves emotion and the response of a community after viewing it, the message behind what is being presented is what should actually be judged.
Art is as wide-ranging as the life from which it springs and each artist represents different characteristics of the world they know. For a split second, it may be said that artists paint to find out reality and to generate direction. The inventors of art make innovations about the marvels and exquisiteness of nature and the poise and graciousness of man. They give these concepts an order to help us understand life in a greater depth. In understanding the history and style of any period of art, we have to understand the equilibrium between social and political development of that particular era.
Whatever the delivery method used to open up these new senses, it would cause our moods to change either positively or negatively towards the piece of work, and enable us to develop an opinion of the artist. This is what art and its influential nature does to us. Art comes in many different flavors or styles and only you could choose the one that appeals to your inner most sensory receptors. In the art world, this is made possible through visual or harmonic methods. Today, society call many “works” produced by individuals and call themselves artist, but is it really art?
The exclusivity of the art-world supports this notion as it is categorized and defined by a hierarchal pattern of thought development: from initial Spectator, to Theorist, to Artist – in a sense, paralleling the core pattern of the human condition and artistic process: observation, evaluation, and response. For one to define oneself an “artist” all three components of this condition are necessary. For French painter, Henri Matisse, an artist can be defined as one who is both a product and component of Nature. “[The Artist] must possess nature by identify himself with her rhythm, by efforts that will prepare the mastery which will later enable him to express himself in his own language. When we speak of Nature it is wrong to forget that we are ourselves a part of Nature.” All that we encounter in life is digested and categorized on an individual level.
Mann, Thomas, Letters of Thomas Mann, selected and translated by Richard and Clara Winston, (New York: Knopf, 1971). Plato, Phaedrus, trans. R. Hackforth, in Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, eds. The Collected Dialogues of Plato (New York: Pantheon, 1966). Rey, W., '"Tragic Aspects of the Artist in Thomas Mann's Works," Modern Language Quarterly, 19 (September 1958).
The understanding of the nature of creation in the history of philosophy has always been connected with the explanation of the substance and of the mechanisms of creative activity. If asked - how creation in general is possible, what are its necessary premises and impulses - the answer was given aut of the trinity: God /Plato, G.W.F.Hegel, N.Berdyaev/, Nature /Epicurus, B.Spinoza, H.Bergson/, Human Being /C.A.Helvetius, K.Marx, J.P.Sartre/. Such abilities of the human beeng as intuition, imagination and fantasy have been united in the mechanisms of creation. Some thinkers have been explaining them through perceiving using "the eyes of mind" of evidently clear true ideas /R.Descartes, I.Kant, E.Husserl/, some others - just vice versa - opposed those concepts of mind and logic, finding in them the way to some instant perceiving of the essence of things - a sign of divine revelation and beneficy /St. Augustine, A.Shopenhauer, E.H.Gilson/.
The contemporary search for a genuinely critical theory and an authentically democratic society continues that project. But what can make theory critical, education liberating, society democratic? It is necessary to theorize our society critically if we are to have a vehicle for correctly informed transformative practice. The problem is that much of what is called critical theory today is rooted in ideas developed by Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, and Georg Lukacs. What I want to argue here is that their work has tended to formulate a particular approach to aesthetic educationand a unique version of a philosophical humanismwhich is then presented as critical theoryagainst the debilitating fragmentation ... ... middle of paper ... ...88); Jurgen Habermas, "Von Lukacs zu Adorno: Rationalisierung als Verdinglichung," in Theorie des kommunikativen HandelnsBand I (Fft: Suhrkamp, 1981).