Rustle in the Bush

Paragraph by paragraph. First thoughts

p1, Works of art have to be considered distinct objects (Of thought/judgment) to analyze unique propositions about them, or the works themselves.

p2, So aesthetic inquiry most likely precedes any specific object of art. (A statement like “Art is paintings, plays, sculptures… etc”). Cultures don’t need to set aside these objects as objects eo ipso to have art. Then there is the question that approaches the philosophy of art:

” Asking what makes some objects and not others valuable in this peculiar way”.

< This book traces a small history of Aesthetics, but probably rightly considers Greece as the start of philosophical reflection. Apparently, Alexander Baumgarten first defined and used the word Aesthetics to refer to a kind of knowledge arising from sensation his definition is “The science of sensitive cognition” and this is how we generally use and understand it today. >

p3, Ancient Egypt for example, does not really exhibit evidence of an aesthetic sensation (From Baldwin Smith’s EGYPTIAN ARCHITECTURE AS CULTURAL EXPRESSION) and the aesthetic attitude is supposed to be formed off of a more ‘Personal self-confidence and self-consciousness’. Egyptian crafts (Pyramids, busts, sculptures, sepulchers, tombs, etc.) Were praised in the description but for the quality of their craftsmanship not the sensation aroused itself

p4, Evidence for the claim in p3 comes from the ancient Egyptian word ‘nerfer’ which is good/fine/beautiful as a description but is more akin to ‘fine’ as the quality of the execution rather than a reflective attitude concerning sensation. Exquisite

p5, He identified Greece as first posing aesthetics considerations, quoting Homer; “The earth looked dark behind the plough, and like to ground that had been ploughed, although it was made of gold; that was a marvelous piece of work!” Beardsley notes that it only raises the new possibility of a mode of thought like aesthetics, it might not in actuality be an aesthetic judgment itself.

p6, These considerations lead to an making important distinction between appearance and reality. Especially pictures because if work-pictures are similar to other kinds of pictures (Dreams, illusions) it disrupts our claims of sensory knowledge (Back to Baumgarten).

Time-wise The Illiad may have begun around 7th century BC, while questions regarding pictorial representation began around the 5th century. The attitude began to develop. These questions regarded mimesis (Imitation; Also an important philosophical term) are brought up in regards to musical imitations of sounds, people’s voices, actions/events in plays, statues of the dead, etc.. “Eikon” as a likeness was also not used until the 5th century. Some evidence is from Democritus ‘one ought to act, or pretend to act s the good person” The word used is “mimeisthai”

p7, Another consideration for this development of the concept was the role of Poets like Homer & Hesiod that were considered history and truth. In 3 senses

1. Poet/prophet/seer. Homer distinguishes these but they essentially function as one for pre-Periclean Greeks. They used heightned language to dazzle and impart power. Parmenides may be the last to do this (vision by goddess) even though he is a natural philsopher
2. They provided images of moral virtue and religious virtue, and were thus vehicles for imparting this knowledge.
3. The poets used symbol and allegories to impart knowledge. (An example he gives is a guy Metrodorus of Lampascus who claims characters in the Illiad are ruminations on natural philosophy. Achilles = sun, Agamemnon = Aither

p8, Ergo, poetic greatness is indicative of epistemic value. However, Xenophanes and Herclitus oppose both thinkers in what might be some of the first literary criticism. Xenophanes claims both H’s misrepresent the gods, making them fallible (What we now find endearing about the story), and Hera. opposes Hesoid because he doesn’t recognize day and night as one. (In what way? Look at this paper).

p9, After the first two major considerations of aesthetic development,

1. The reality/appearance distinction
2. The role of the ‘Great Poets’
3. The third ends up being ‘The origin of the poet’s greatness’

There was not really an analogy yet (Before Plato) of an artist specifically (This category didn’t even exist yet) or even as ‘demiurge’ as the Genises of the world. Most questions of word-origin were related to procreation. Again, the origin of the skills and talents of poets was considered to be derived from the gods.)

p10, Most art-only speculations didn’t start until the late 5th century (Socrates and Sophists) but a keen interest in the cyclical order of growth and change and such, led highly to the development of aesthetic inquiry as it began to border natural science. Pythagoras (Early 5th century) began his famous program and has one of the earliest developed aesthetic theories – His work on the order and form of music.

p11, This began with empirical discoveries between the length of strigns and the pitch of their vibrations. Ratio of lengths, and their corrisponding intervals; 1:2 Octave, 2:3 Fifth, 3:4 Fourth.

This is the lynchpin of Pythagoreanism, that qualitative differences can be reduced to mathematical ratios. It rationalizes the opposition of Unity/Dualtity and Odd/Even, in the idea of harmony. This is of course extended to all things. They even believe that the planets emitted musical harmonies tha kept them together, but which we cannot hear. The music itself was used as a healing instrument.

p12, So we can see a lot of this as a lead-up. Pythagoras’ obvious influence on Plato. However, there was much we didn’t see. However, most of this takes place as critical theory (Not in the Kantian sense; or ‘poststructuralist’) as literary criticism by the likes of Sophocles, or Pythagorean theories of music, or proportions in sculptures, architecture, or scene painting.