Yannis Ioannidis

On Art











- 1 -

Translators note



I wish to express gratitude to my dear professor Yannis Ioannidis who
trusted in me the freedom to render On Art in English. I hope I did not fall
short of his expectations.
There is no horse that cant be ridden, no rider that cant be thrown.
The wisdom of that rodeo saying to use a British expression next to an
American context kept me on my mettle throughout this enterprise, so that I
rise to the challenge. Inherent or circumstantial difficulties I have met here and
there, lexicon gaps etc. are really of no immediate concern to the reader, to bring
them up here; and as for that, the less one pins down those tricky parts, the
tidier the look of the final outcome, plus the handier the upshot,
notwithstanding, as some irony would have it, a point made by the author here
afterward, viz., that an audience takes more pleasure in a piece of work, when in
awareness of what it takes So then, let it be sufficient to say of this translation
that fidelity to text meant going invariably for the option which would keep it
within reach of laymen and experts alike lest I failed the recipients spirit of it.
With regard to occasional Ancient Greek (Pre-Socratic, Classical and the
so-called Greco-Roman) quotations, fragments etc., as well as the responsibility
to a credible rendition of them that appreciates the readers right to cross-
reference and further reading, I consider myself indebted, for the most part, to
the Perseus Project of Tufts University, the TLG project of the University of
California at Irvine, the e-books of the University of Adelaide and Peithos
Web, all of which proved of great convenience as sources of authority in already
translated material of the kind. I should, nevertheless, call the readers attention
to an invaluable statement by Byzantine philosopher Georgios Pachymeres, to
the best of my knowledge, never translated before; Ioannidis makes use of it as
an integral element of his argument (ff.15&16).
As for my shortcomings, I find comfort in the thought that, anyhow, the
English speaking audience with an interest in artistic matters gained access to a
piece of scholarship it ought to have in hand as much as its Greek counterpart. I
am obliged in this regard to David Cheal, good friend and Art-loving journalist
in London.
I give in to the temptation to somewhat spice things up, as it were, by
admiting that I saw my work through not without some affectionate feeling for
the American addressee, perhaps out of reminiscence.
Heartfelt thanks go to my companion in life, Eni, for her support.


Sotos Chryssafopoulos

- 2 -

Preface


M
y professional occupation with Music over quite a few decades now (and that in a
threefold capacity as performing musician, Music professor and composer
always filled with respect and awe for that sacred notion of artistic creation in
this regard), has had me frequently run into mistrusts, misgivings and disbeliefs
around the what and the why of many things concerns pointing all inevitably
to the question in principle of the essence of this art form of mine and, hence,
to that of the essence of Art in general.
Matters of this kind have troubled many a people already from antiquity
up to this day some practicing Art themselves, others just within a wide range
of interests, as well as, above all, the philosophical intellectuals, all in their time.
So, several associated views have, accordingly, been handed down, depending on
historical conditions, perspective and prevalent outlook. Subsequently, we
witness those next in line consistently giving way to received maxims, passively
bowing before past thinkers authority in this respect, no doubt in veneration to
the cumulative intellectual contribution and weight of each a routine to
sympathize with fully, but not one to readily approve of at face value; for in
nearly (if not) all cases it presumes of those worshipped theorists a respective
scale of command over crucial or merely relevant empirical evidence, yet without
appropriately gauging it by the current knowing standard, obviously expected of
someone getting down to an issue to share.
Views on Music attributed to Pythagoras, for example, along with those
said of him about sonic phenomena and their relationships, have had their sway
on Music Theory over the centuries, and to an extent exert their influence still,
only over a parallel write off of Pythagoras own lack of acquaintance a
legitimate one taking his time into account with what is accepted about natural
processes around sound production and audition today: viz., that sound, for
instance, is a sensory perception, in other words, a psychological experience,
while its behavior as a natural phenomenon is studied in terms of specific
vibration frequencies; that, moreover, it is not the magic of numbers we hold
responsible for the sense of consonance or dissonance, but, rather, certain
responses of the human brain solid findings of modern science which, needless
to say, even esteemed intellectuals of later times ignored no less.
However, Aristotle, one of the greatest minds ever, had effectively gone at
the heart of that complication in good time, as made clear in his writings (on
what he held to be earlier philosophers misjudgments on the respiratory system
of fish etc.): The main reason why these writers have not given a good account
of these facts is that they have no acquaintance with the internal organs (Little
Physical Treatises, On Respiration, Ch. IX).
- 3 -

With my remarks above I dont mean to look down on philosophical
contemplation at large lending a helping hand to the human endeavor to make
out the world, or having an eye for the higher values in life. I simply want to
point out that, while philosophy in principle gives us a fine lesson on how to
think things out and how to get on with various particular problems, we are on a
safer side with it and, indeed, we benefit the most out of it by putting the
elements involved under objective scrutiny.
Having, therefore, long felt how different views of different Art experts (or
amateurs for that matter), connoisseurs, as it were, and others, and even of
celebrated intellectuals at times can really compromise a sound understanding of
things especially when they pass over the scientific facts in hand and stick to
ideological pretenses or cognitive biases alien to Art I have made my mind to
face the issues at stake head on, while keeping my eyes open to the actual facts
and the meaningful empirical evidence, albeit mindful of the admonition just
cited and duly issued by Aristotle a wise and, apparently, a widely applicable
one.
I have made plenty of my observations public on separate occasions; they
can be found scattered all over my writings. In the present work I wanted to lay
them down somewhat more funneled, starting out with an enhanced version of a
namesake paper (On Art) I had presented in a colloquium series at the Centre
of Philosophical Research in Athens some years ago; to that one I have added
further ones about the Beautiful or about Value etc. presented elsewhere
already. What I had to say in those writings had been put together in the form of
short and successive propositions a way to go about which, I still believe, helps
the reader check and try what is being set forth and even form a personal view
on it, be it favorable or unfavorable. Here, each group of those strings of
propositions comes as a lead-in to a relatively brief commentary.

*

What is about to ensue is a quest for objectivity; an examination and an
evaluation of empirical material and of pertinent historical truths, as long as they
can be substantiated. Therefore, any speculation, assumption or theory that has
to do with how Art came into being in the first place; muses on the crack of its
dawn; goes into metaphysics; maybe crosses over into the obscure even; and,
perhaps, speaks of vague undertows between Art and the artist, or Art and the
audience in terms of some arcane inner involvement etc. is beyond the purview
of this treatise. Besides, the associated theories notwithstanding, the actual facts
stay the same: these are the very works of art themselves, the making and the
experience of them, as well as the factually traceable processes which take part
whereas, on the other hand, a firm foundation of a thorough comprehension of
the overall Art phenomenon rests on a consideration of the specifics, one as
dispassionate as it can possibly be, for that matter.

- 4 -

***
ON ART

I

1. Art is the extraordinary skill shown in the accomplishment of an
achievement or, better, that which is Art is, in fact, an achievement.
2. This concept of skill contains in it proficiency and apposite application of a
given procedure in other words technique as well as power of
imagination, and the necessary ingenuity to enhance and innovate, plus to
adjust technique, in order to accommodate the demands of the sought after
outcome each time.
3. The achievement thereof lies in the fulfillment of an intention as a result of
an effort put for that reason into some specific activity or construction.
4. The degree of perfection in an achievement squares with the degree the final
outcome identifies with the one intended.
II

1. Among the various art forms a distinction is made of those known as Fine
Arts or just Art, in general.
2. Likewise, a distinction is made between achievements of skill and artistic
achievements, a product of skill and a work of art, a hand of skill and an
artist.
3. The crucial difference between an achievement of skill and an artistic
achievement is that the former has to do with an answer to a practical,
technical or mechanical problem: the solution sought out is weighed up,
next, after functional standards; whereas the latter is of the outward
appearance, the form of it, which is, in turn, appreciated on the basis of a
special set of case relevant criteria.
4. An artistic achievement lies in the accomplishment of certain of the creative
artists intentions and pursuits which, themselves, may vary: for they may fall
into simply structural, purely expressive, mixed ones, practical even,
ideological, or other; in any case, and whatever the creative artist might be
after, that cannot be pulled off but only through certain structures and
outlines, in other words, through shapes capable of putting a related message
across.
5. The artistic achievement is one of form-making or, generally speaking, that
which is Art is, in fact, an achievement in form-making.
III

- 5 -

1. Structures, shapes, images, objects, situations etc. act as symbols insofar as
they can convey a certain message or bear in them some special significance,
and may, therefore, turn into carriers of some special content, be it a
meaning, a feeling or an idea.
2. As a means of communication between the creative artist and the audience,
symbols make up the expressive means of Art and they are either self-
contained or complete, or partial and interconnected elements of form; in
other words, they are either macro-forms or micro-forms.
3. Symbols work in Art both when used deliberately or by insight, intuition etc.;
in any case, symbolic capacities lie in or can be read into any formal feature.
4. A symbol may be read into an element due to responsive processes (stimulus
sense sentiment) proper to psychobiology: those lie within the natural
functions of the human organism and include an organic combination of
senses, instincts and intelligence, serving perception and recognition, in order
to pay out near awareness and tell the immediate surroundings and the world
in general.
5. Owing to those processes counting in instant effects on mood or an
intellectual activity set off instead symbols fall into types of a broad range, as
well as vary in capacity, depending on their degree of agreement with real
objects or situations, the all-embracing or the timeless, conventional truths (of
local, historical, social, and generally cultural footing) etc.
6. Symbols work in Art primarily according to the audiences direct or indirect
familiarity with them; sensitivity of the audience decides perception of novel
ones, i.e. elements of form and expressive means never before encountered.
7. The perceptual process, be it in relation to a message, meaning, or emotional
tension, leaves room for diverse readings into them; that is to say, manifold
symbolic capacities may be read into any formal feature, as seen fit from
alternative points of view: the same symbol may, thus, work over diverse
contents of meaning, emotion etc. simultaneously. Symbols are multi-
significant.

IV

1. Rationally or intuitively, deliberately or not, a choice over countless symbols
wholly admissive of a reading in terms of some meaning or emotion is made,
following a specific intention for an action or construction toward the making
of a unified whole or distinctive unity; and that, down the line, constitutes the
very conception sought after in Art, as well as the equally manifold notion of
content in it.
2. As a sum of segments of symbolic likelihood, the content of a work of art can
be many-sided; and each of those sides may be seen as distinct and definite
from some particular point of view.
- 6 -

3. Single-significant or multi-significant, evident or covert, stated out or
concealed, of some suggested meaning, ideological footing or emotional
bearing (customarily wrapped up as, e.g., dramatic, lyrical, majestic,
graceful etc., including that which, by corresponding to none of the above, is
sometimes labeled as singular), this content is really immaterial to the true
essence of a piece of art, even if it were itself the chief aim of and the driving
force behind a creative artists work.
4. The essence and true content of a piece of art lies in the very spirit of it, in the
inventive skill in it. The latter paves the way to conception, formulation and
reification of the composition; and it is hard-wired in the uniqueness of it as a
form-making achievement.
5. Though usually considered as two separate and even rival entities, content
and form are, as it were, of one substance and indivisible: No content of
any kind or genre makes sense, unless it come to the fore as a formulated
idea; and no form (featurestructurecomposition) can even exist devoid of
some content either.

V

1. The form-making process, as essence of every creative artistic activity (i.e., the
whole progress from the point of actual conception onto that of actualization
varies among Civilization types, Art categories, Historical periods, artistic or
personal styles even among momentary impulses of the creative artist.
2. Among the various art forms, the form-making processes between the two
basic Civilization types known as this of Myth and that of Reason are
diametrically opposed: collective consciousness, unchallenged assent to that
which is long-established, therefore, a line of slow change exemplifies Myth;
whereas the personal entry, nonconformity and the pursuit for new expressive
means, therefore, a row of rapid change exemplifies Reason'. These latter
properties (and especially the crave after personal expression, itself a claim of
Reason) bring out the concept of work and set it apart as an unique,
accomplished and unalterable artistic creation; whereas the same notion of
work within Myth keeps clear of personal identity traits, while any such
touch in it recedes and, often, dies out under an overriding improvisational
treatment.
3. Unlike what applies to personal work (which bears a signature as such), the
mythical consciousness anonymous creation is taken in as something
somewhat self-evident; it falls out, as it were, as an undisputed natural
phenomenon. The improvisational treatment in it is bound to choices made
on an impulse of the moment among specific, established and generally
accepted structural and expressive formulae always, of course, in the context
of a specific social setting, group, whole etc.
4. This latter kind of Art is generally known as Folk Art, whereas the other, that
of Reason and of a marked personal identity about it is termed as Fine Art, to
- 7 -

suggest by that entirely original artistic creativity as such it is addressed and
examined throughout the present work.
VI

1. Art falls into the various Fine Arts (Literature, Music, Painting etc.),
depending on medium (discourse, sound, color etc.) not ruling out parallel
use of different media within one art form (e.g. volume or three-dimensional
entities plus color in Sculpture), or even diverse art disciplines acting together
as one (multimedia works).
2. Medium falls into raw medium (such as stone, wood, or metal in Sculpture)
and processed medium, i.e. the result of a treatment which brings raw
medium to a next, second level of complexity with a definite and distinct
potential, thereby raising it into a System; this latter renders the material
organized in the hands of the creative artist to work with, at and further on
through the form-making process (as happens with phonemes and language).
3. The historical and social setting provides the creative artist with the System
(together with its formal qualities, shaping possibilities, syntactic rules etc.),
and that, in turn, forms the ground techniques, styles and, in the end, a
Pervasive Style grow from.
4. A Pervasive Style typifying a Civilization, an Age, or a geographic area, evolves
out of merging trends, patterns and preferences (dictated by expressive,
structural, functional etc. needs) borne in the form-making processes.
5. Within the bounds of a Pervasive Style, these form-making processes in
Creative Art mine the System to harness new and latent form-making
possibilities, in each run with the purpose to impose ones own creative
volition on the processed medium a course of action embodying the course
from the general (=System-Pervasive Style) to the specific and personal
(=work).
6. Naturally, as this whole treatment uses up the Systems form-making
capacities, ceaseless upgrading, with additional readjustments along the way,
eventually results in a total exhaustion and, finally, replacement of it by
another System. This sequence illustrates one of the main drives (alongside
external ones) behind perpetual difference, evolvement of Systems and
development of Pervasive Styles in Art.

VII

1. From a different standpoint on medium and as far as both the process of
shaping and the process of perception of form are concerned, the Arts fall
into these of Space and those of Time: in the former form exists as final
within space, while in the latter it unfolds and comes to conclusion within
time.
- 8 -

2. Arts of Time (Poetry, Music, Dance etc.) differ from Arts of Space, also
called plastic or visual (Sculpture, Painting, Architecture etc.), primarily in
that perception of their final form entails an active role of memory; for as
full form is made up of successive momentary appearances/disappearances
of segments of formal elements, the work itself cannot be taken in as a
unified and conclusive entity, unless those be kept vivid in the audiences
memory.
3. Therefore, the form of a work of an Art of Time does not really exist as such,
i.e. as an integrated entity, but only in memory and imagination, indeed, as
a quasi illusion of a solid presence.



***






















- 9 -


Commentary

The concept of Art has been associated with some kind of creative activity
since antiquity, and that can be reasoned out from the meaning itself of the
Ancient Greek verb teucho (to make), generally accepted origin of the term
techne, the Greek word for art or craft. However, indeed even in respect to
the originally creative part of it, Art has mostly been believed to be an activity
suiting and tending to the human need for expression, communication, soul
contact and the like, notions which, in turn, have raised heated discussion
among subsequent schools to this day over things unfounded, of course, and
all about presumption, yet things guiding one firmly to miss the obvious to the
eye: that over and above ones purposes or notions about either the artistic
essence, or the role, possibilities and aims of it, no matter what, everything in
Art is materialized exclusively through formal elements; those count up to the
form of an artwork and they are the only expressive means to be had, for that
matter.
Undoubtedly, a structure may be enriched and charged with some
emotion, meaning, or otherwise and it may thereby transcend to a next level, yet
specifically owing to symbols read into formal elements be it, say, a certain
color in Painting, volume in Sculpture, rhythmic unit in Music, or some more
composite combination, drawn out of a realm rich in relationships and
oppositions, attracting and repelling forces, releases and tensions.
For example, in the famous Sistine Chapel fresco by Michelangelo and
the frame of the Creation of Adam in particular, we see that the latters unfolded
forearm leans languidly on his lap letting out a feel of calm and listless
hopefulness, whereas, in contrast, God stretches out resolutely to inspire a
sparkle of soul into him, with an air of a both high-handed and heavy-handed
spirit about the whole posture. Further to this typical use of an expressive
potential in the body language, visual artists (always keen for comparable
possibilities in volumes and shapes) resorted almost exclusively to purely abstract,
geometric etc. volumes and shapes in time, indeed after having gradually learned
how to take full advantage of emotional effects of them, especially over this past
century.
1

Onto another art form now, that of Poetry, in looking, for instance, at the
consonant Fair isle, that from the fairest of all flowers opening verse of the
exquisite Sonnet To Zante by E. A. Poe, one does not fail to notice in reciting it
that the repeating f adds to a sense of familiar flow, emphasizing a frolic
farewell and a fascination over a fable from afar.
2
In fact, one can track down

1
cf. Commonwealth of Spirit, Ioannidis 2003. Translators Note. to be translated.
2
Translators Note. In the original Greek text Ioannidis makes use of the opening consonant verse of
the well-known, magnificent and stately Epigram, composed by Dionysios Solomos (1798-1857)
- 10 -

here the commonplace linguistic process of onomatopoeia, i.e. words made out of
some sonic allusion: e.g. whinnying instantly brings to mind a horse, howling
a wolf etc. With regard to Music, on the other hand, its easy for all to follow
that, as a rule, the categories termed as dramatic, lyrical etc. represent, for the
most part, respectively associated rhythmic patterns
3
.
Let us say once more, though, that past the aim of the creative artist, and
all the more so when we speak of expressive merit, in the end we recognize and
appreciate there an achievement in form-making at all times.
Further, it must be made clear that perfection in an achievement oughtnt
to be confused with the quantifiable size of it, for, depending on the category or
genre of the anticipated outcome, various other factors come properly into play
to that effect: exceptional skill, increased resourcefulness, intellectual pains etc.,
all summoned up to the accomplishment of a sizeable and composite form; for,
say, a skillfully executed comic strip may, without a doubt, deserve to be
appreciated as an achievement in drawing, as for that, a perfect one too; but,
whatever the degree of achievement in it, one would hardly put it as such side by
side a painting by Rembrandt In other words, appreciation of an achievement
really means appreciation of scope and import of the intention for it i.e. of the
intention any such engagement sets out to accomplish.


*

In essence, the form-making process is one of continuous choices made by
the creative artist over multiple options springing out of a reserve of knowledge
and experiences; and these choices, alongside expressive preferences or other
intentions to fulfill, are made in order to cope with constantly arising structural
problems. This deliberate course of action in specific, this very awareness of a
why behind each and every choice places the creative artists way of going
about the work in the domain of rational thinking straightaway; and it enables
us, thereby, to recognize in the core of any achievement a proportion of
intellectual potential invested in that choice-making process.
The perceptual process in Art is worthy here of special attention,
particularly as it falls into two separate kinds in relation to the Arts of Space and
the Arts of Time, respectively: For one thing, the work of an Art of Space stands
before the audience in full form, yielding thereby time adequacy for a full

regarded as national poet of Greece in homage to the destruction of the island of Psara by the
Ottoman Turks during the Greek War of Independence. Alliteration, consonance, assonance etc. may,
of course, be found all over English literature too, and many other verses, for that matter, might have
seamlessly served our purpose here to keep explicitly to the point being made by the author. I opted
for To Zante by acclaimed and my cherished Edgar Alan Poe (1809-1849), as a personal tribute to
both poets, since Solomos, his contemporary and a tragic figure no less, was born in that cradle of
Modern Greek Poetry, the beautiful namesake Ionian Island of Zante (formally Zakynthos in Greek)
and rests there today.
3
For more on Music see Ioannidis, The Expressiveness of Structure and the Structure of
Expressiveness, Papers on Music VIII. Translators Note. To be translated.
- 11 -

perception of it. And, what is more important, it also provides the audience with
the leisure to look among various self-contained micro-forms for structural
details and existing combinations or relationships, associate with like
recollections and experience, finally, the conceptual, the affective or whatever
other bearings the structural elements are charged with.
Next to the Arts of Space, those of Time ask for an entirely different
perceptual procedure: it is not just memory that makes a difference there, as it is
called in to arrange into units stimuli perceived one after another; experiential as
well as living knowing of Systems and Pervasive Styles, out of which shapes are
formed, carry out a very important role, by turning partial elements into
recognizable (recognition presupposes cognition) structural units, integral parts
of a sensible entity; and those are thereby registered as linked to one another
the ones left behind with the ones to come; and, in the end, the full form is
recaptured (in the sphere of imagination this time) and understood not simply as
some kind of shape, but also as something sensible as well as of some weaker or
weightier emotional charge.
Among the three Arts of Time, on the other hand, Music stands out as
the one in which the perceptual process is not only more complicated, but also
more demanding in exposure, experiences and knowing. For, corporal
movements may make up the raw medium in Dance, and human phonemes
may, as it happens, make up the raw medium in Discourse counting in a next
level setup of them into Systems, i.e. types of Dance and the different languages,
respectively yet still both of those media belong to common daily life
experiences and are narrowly connected with the struggle for survival; and, really,
both are innate properties and capacities of the human species generic
constitution.
Unlike space in other media, the musical space different shapes and
forms are organized and exist in, is a totally invented one; and it corresponds to
no external, natural state of things. That imaginary musical space is a firsthand
construction of the human intellect. It is made up as such through practice, i.e.
not in theory but out of repeated acts of Music making; and it is marked out by
the limits, the coordinates and the stations of each Musical System, which
gradually clears up as it is being made out and taken in along the way. It should
be, therefore, clear that any sound or production of sounds outside this
imaginary space and its stations is actually a non-entity to the listener inside. So
then, a certain lack of mutual understanding or disagreement frequently
witnessed among different types of listeners really falls out of differences in the
makeup between the imaginary musical spaces each of them shares, yet not with
each other in other words, differences between listeners correspond to
differences between the Musical Systems they have gotten to know, have grown
used to and are comfortable with. Therefore, to the common yet utterly
mistaken view that Music is a universal language, one may retort that, as for that,
things in Music work exactly as they do with words and language: indeed,
- 12 -

speaking is a universal phenomenon, but languages differ from each other and it
takes separate knowledge of one to make that one out.
Finally, I should add that an affirmative sentiment, a sense of approval is
born in someone who experiences the full form of a work of art and
acknowledges apposite shape, sensible content and an emotional bearing in it;
the same during successive perception of its partial structural elements. This
affirmative sentiment is, in turn, expressed with the attribute of beautiful the
opposite accordingly. That is to say, while products of skill are appreciated in
terms of success or failure, works of art are dealt with in terms of beauty. Last but
not least, let us note that an achievement of skill, even a pure one, may
additionally be appreciated as beautiful, when an achievement in form-making
happens to be acknowledged in it also.

*

The term and attribute of the beautiful is used in countless
circumstances in our daily lives, to express some pleasure over a multitude of
different things, not necessarily in an artistic context. This is why it has posed as
a puzzle to people in the attempt of humankind to figure out the world over
centuries now. In the ensuing chapter we shall set on an, however brief,
examination of it along those lines.




***










- 13 -


THE BEAUTIFUL

1. We generally call beautiful something agreeable, i.e. that which is pleasing.
2. Enjoyment or pleasure is the feeling that comes with the satisfaction of a
need, and it generally matches up the beautiful.
3. Consciousness of pleasure is called delight. Delight is the humanization of
pleasure.
4. Intellectual participation transcends the sense of the beautiful to a higher
level, whereby, seeking and, finally, finding out the whys and wherefores
behind delight leads to admiration.
5. Pleasure the one matching up the beautiful fits in different spheres and
falls into different categories, depending on needs satisfied to it corporal or
intellectual, biological or cultural, universal, social, individual etc.
6. Needs may be generally grouped into two categories: innate (whose
foundation and causal terms are of the psychobiological structure of the
human being), and acquired, which are cultural. However, all, without
exception, are dictated by the imperative of survival.
7. Dependence of the beautiful on the need/satisfaction pair sets up the
objectivity of it. In other words, a need/satisfaction pair goes together with
an enjoyment/beautiful pair, and where the former is absent, the latter is
also absent.
8. Objectivity of the beautiful appears conflicting with a widespread
understanding of it as subjective in character. In reality, however, the
subjective character in this respect is all about needs: all diversity on the
beautiful, either in viewpoint or in the sense of it, is, in fact, reducible to
diversity on needs.
9. Satisfaction of need begets new needs; pleasure brings about need for
pleasure; awareness of pleasure, and all the more so anticipation or pursuit
for it, are themselves felt as needs as well.
10. A spectrum rich and diverse in instances of the beautiful mirrors a spectrum
equally rich and diverse in needs.
11. Objects of art meeting an audiences special needs and anticipations are
given the attribute of beautiful, according to the extent they do so; in
intellectual affairs those needs make up what is known as circle of
intellectual interests.
12. With regard to appreciation, quality and measure of the beautiful agree with
the intensity, variety, sorting etc. of the needs and anticipations met, thus
keeping both objectivity and subjectivity about the beautiful simultaneously
present.


- 14 -

***

Commentary


Clearly, the preceding propositions are plain conclusions reached through
observations of common sense over the issues under consideration. The
difference there from various theories on the beautiful even thinkers of
considerable consequence have proposed over the centuries is sharp; let us be
permitted to ponder, however, whether such a comparison is at all possible (and
fair!), given the vast, and crucial in this respect, disparity in experiences between
those great thinkers and current common sense: we should not fail to see, for
instance, that Platos or Aristotles knowing, say of Sculpture, covered styles up
to that of Praxiteles at the furthest! (Did not Kants or Hegels too extend barely
over the end of the 18
th
and the onset of the 19
th
century, respectively..?)
For in a web of separate religious, theological and socio-political
conditions, each with a share in the shaping of a comprehensive world outlook,
theoretical stands taken and theories set forth admittedly, in an admirably
sophisticated, intricate and, often, convincing way could not but,
unsurprisingly, rely solely on what was known until their time; and this is the
reason why presumed knowledge had better be gauged prior to any talk of a
consistent theory or bare view even, appropriately along the lines
aforementioned (pp.2-3). We might even argue that current common sense has a
certain advantage over those past times Colossi, given the numerous new styles
available to come by and bear in mind nowadays new styles in the form of
actual works of art, albeit left out of the category of beautiful by those fated to
duly miss them and set to gamely dismiss them, no doubt
All this reasoning, of course, clearly relates to the temporal question in
Art, i.e. a timely contingency or time-dependence clause of sense legitimacy
4
; yet
it is hardly irrelevant to the initial issue here of the essence of beautiful. So, a
close look on the string of short propositions laid down in this chapter should
bring out a key concept the sense of beautiful is predicated on: that of
interesting. Specifically, if that which is interesting gives rise to need and
anticipation, then satisfaction of those is what brings about the sense of beautiful
thereby.

4
See The Commonwealth of the Intellect, Ioannidis 2003. Translators Note. In the work cited the
author elaborates on the temporal question in Art. The key passage there reads: Historical
legitimacy of a work of art is a major issue and a fundamental criterion of evaluation. Indeed, taking
up further what we can learn from the Greek term for beautiful (horaion), derivative of the word
hour (hora) and of the word corresponding to the concept of fullness of time (horimoteta), we
cannot but admit that the question of value in Art is one of time par excellence, in the sense that it
entails a judgment whether a work of art is timely or untimely, made on time or out of time. Full
translation of the work in English pending.
- 15 -

With regard to works of art, the element of interesting there is ramified;
and it centers on their different facets, which, of course, may vary depending on
needs and anticipations of art-loving audiences. All in all, the etymology behind
the word interesting (interest > Latin: inter-esse > to differ, to be of importance
Greek: endiapheron > diapherein = to differ), as well as the common expression this
is something else, allow one to track down the gist of it in the originality, in the
inventive element of an achievement. As for its aforesaid ramified nature, one
may observe that the interesting element in, say, a painting may happen to lie in
the sketch of it in one case, or, perhaps, a certain color in another, the subject,
some combinations of elements, even the sum of its parts etc. To be sure, an
equivalent can be found in all art forms, with the necessary adjustments to each
medium separately.
Needs and anticipations for that which is interesting fall properly under
the acquired heading; they are obviously cultural. Nevertheless, also innate
human needs are being satisfied during perception and while in the living
experience of a work of art. In fact, they are the ones casting the field symbols
spread out on and get to work by that implying the side-effect exerted by formal
elements on an audiences psychological constitution. For instance, the need for
proportion (of sizes, shapes etc.) and, by and large, for what would let out a sense
of a more balanced and more natural arrangement are clearly of the innate. On
the other hand, the slender felt as graceful, the immense as majestic, and so on,
they all give us an idea of the synergy of culture with nature behind psychological
states and emotions, as they are sparked off.
Attempts to make out and read phenomena traditionally looked upon as
related to the beautiful and artistic creation date back to the Ancient Greek
philosophers; such matters carried on busying the philosophical-theological
thought of The Middle Ages as well. Naturally, fresh interest in them began to
step up during the Renaissance, and lasts unabated to this day. Meanwhile,
German philosopher A. G. Baumgarten introduced the term aesthetics (in the
first half of the 18
th
century), utilizing the Greek word for sense (=aesthesis) to
stress the tie between the senses and artistic phenomena, otherwise seen as
proper to the intellectual sphere.
In his study of Music, however, philosopher and Aristotles pupil
Aristoxenus had acknowledged the primacy of the sense of hearing to judge and
calculate pitch intervals already by 4
th
century B.C.E.; he thereby became
founder of the School of the Akoustikoi (Acoustical) or Mousikoi (Musical))
and stood up against the Pythagoreans or the Kanonikoi (Canonical), patent
advocates of integer ratio supremacy on their part instead. Yet, the first and
foremost report on the joint role hearing plays in the making of musical systems
came straight from the Byzantine philosopher Georgios Pachymeres (1242-1310
C.E.), and, sadly, that has gone quite unnoticed. In his Compendium of Four
Lessons (Greek original: Syntagma ton Tessaron Mathematon) viz.,
Mathematics, Geometry, Astronomy and Music itself a section of his Four
Books (Greek original: Tetravivlos) and standard academic text for his lectures
- 16 -

at the University of Constantinople, this wise teacher writes, among other
things: An infinite multitude of modes all systems are made up of can be
devised after infinite constituents of consonant tone orders, but in energy and in
sense they are definite.
Indisputably, those concepts of energy and sense may indeed be
appreciated as foundations of all systems throughout the Ages and in that sense
they shed a bright light in the aesthetic aspect of the relationship between
human beings and sound. Further, it is truly worth noting that Aristoxenus had
arrived at something quite similar too himself, by pointing out that musical
tones do not just hold a position, but also possess power in a system! And this
concept of power (we would refer to function today) of sounds may, no doubt,
be identified in the media of other art forms as well.
As an ontological, sociological, evaluative etc. approach to Art as it were,
as a Philosophy of the Beautiful aesthetics broke fresh ground for different
theories and views to come out, raising controversy and stirring up debates
among respective exponents, often over deeply dividing issues from Baumgarten
on.
It is certainly not of the occasion here to go over those various incidents;
we should, nevertheless, single out the unmistakable vagueness usually spotted
all over them, as far as a distinction between the simple aesthetic experience
and the more complex aesthetic-artistic one is concerned: For, when a natural
object, or some occurrence of natural forces happens to be credited as beautiful,
or better, when the aesthetic object is void of creative intent and cannot, for that
reason, be taken for an achievement, then the sentiment of pleasure, enjoyment,
or even admiration of it is entirely different to the one taken in a work of art,
which brings a clean sense of human participation with it.
It should be made clear at this point that, anyway, natural objects or
occurrences satisfying innate, basic natural needs are not grouped together with
aesthetic objects, and related states are usually recognized as merely sensual.
However, if the way a natural object or occurrence falls out lets it be seen as an
(side or add-on) achievement, then it is, indeed, attributed as beautiful and it
crosses thereby into the aesthetic domain.
That concept of way finds application in many separate circumstances; it
may have to do with the preparation of some delectable dish, or an athletes set
of movements near a record, or with kindness toward a fellow human being
(from that point of view taking on a moral-affectionate character as a concept).
Ancient Greek thought is striking in this respect: the very word eu-
morphon (Greek: eumorphon or omorphon=well-formed or well-shaped), used
alternatively for beautiful today (Greek: horaion), speaks for the close
relationship between the concepts of beautiful and perfect form; likewise, the
very word horaion (down the line meaning timely from the Greek word
hora=hour) indicates that all is beautiful in the fullness of time truly a profound
approach on the matter. At the same time, ancient Greek thought held nature to
be the basis of beauty, since they reckoned it supplied perfect form. However,
- 17 -

though distinctively portrayed as beautiful, their gods were cast after the best-
looking of actual human beings notwithstanding that human beauty is
contingent on virtues beside purely biological functions and still the relativity
of it all is clearly acknowledged by, e.g., Xenophanes with an incisive remark he
made in the 6
th
century B.C.E.: Ethiopians portray their gods as blacks with flat
noses, whereas Thracians picture theirs as blue-eyed and red-haired
Moreover, we find that many things generally credited as beautiful satisfy
alternative psychological needs also, pointing thereby to an interaction between
Nature and Art to that effect. For example, the tweeting of a bird is beautiful
(possibly because it meets our need for tranquility), and, likewise, so is the
roaring of a lion (probably out of our need for the sense of might) etc... As it
happens, we witness here something of a concept exchange linking Nature to
Art: in Painting, for instance, one may marvel at a country scene so adroitly
worked down to the last detail, to exclaim so beautiful it looks real or,
conversely, one may trace artistic overtones in a natural object or occurrence as
to cry out so beautiful it looks fake this time. We may even take human
movements to be beautiful, when they happen to resemble those of a feline, and
so on.
The cases just brought up are but a few samples picked out of a wide
variety of relationships, needs, anticipations, fulfillments, sentiments of
acceptance or rejection, synergy or opposition between Nature and Art etc., etc.
And as for those, we should further add that attempts to group and sort the
various artistic events and artwork types have been tried time after time in the
past, not without the usual disagreement or dispute; yet such efforts always wind
up to be of almost complete inconsequence, for, at long last, the category an
artwork belongs to is beside the point, given that artistic merit alone, as well as
whether that artwork is seen as an achievement in form-making or not is what
really matters.
Let us, for example, toy with the idea of a painting by an unskillful hand
depicting the Crucifixion undeniably a theme of the sublime; still, the work
will be grouped together with poor quality art and the sublime of it, therefore,
turns out to be pointless. In clear contrast, a fine and elegant piece of sculpture,
on the other hand, may with no trouble be seen as artistically sublime, regardless
of its theme. And of course, an equivalent to that can be generally said of all
works of art.
Actually, judgments of this kind and a wording along those lines round
out the opening discovery that Art is about a form-making achievement one fit
to call beautiful in recognition of pure artistic merit. Then again, Art
classification systems, inconclusive as they may be, they too have a say in what we
make of artistic events and in the how we weigh up artworks, though for the
most part they keep to methods which take on the virtual theme or content of a
work to look into, indeed with certain indifference to the measure of artistic
achievement in it. Here afterward we shall take up the question of value, and, as
a matter of course, the aesthetic-artistic question will also open up its moral
- 18 -

dimension in that context. However, a discussion in broad terms of the question
of form in Art comes now appropriately next.
FORM

1. Form is the outward outline either of an object or of an abstract, imaginary
shape and it is of specific and distinct dimensions, in terms of relations and
proportions in it at all times.
2. Specific relations in dimensions and proportions make a form recognizable
and definite, telling it apart from the formless.
3. A form may be simple or composite, yet it is perceived as a unity anyway.
4. A composite form consists of parts (or components) which may also be
perceived as unities.
5. Partial unities making up a full form are that forms structural elements.
6. A full form is handled as macro-form and its parts, likewise, as micro-forms.
7. Structural perspective or structural analysis refers to an examination of the
micro-forms makeup, and particularly its organic relation to the macro-
form.



***



















- 19 -



Commentary


Grasp of form can be counted among primal necessities as a claim of
human survival (most likely of that of other living creatures too). Specifically, an
influx of information would add up to an absolutely foreboding and besetting
chaos, if we lacked this mental ability to register separately unities pulled
together out of multiple, yet kindred pieces of it; in that sense form stands for a
reduction to unity, and only as such, i.e. as an information shaft, can it make
possible to pass this material on to others, issuing in effect human
communication.
The significance of form in Art lies precisely in that function of it as a
means of conveying all information which count up to the essence of an artwork;
in other words, grasp of form is condition sine qua non to the comprehension of
a work of art. In bringing the different partial elements together into a sensible
entity, that is to say, in binding them together into a unity of a specific meaning
(as a result), own presence, and unmistakable identity (in effect just those
qualities that make an artwork be one), this function of form turns something
abstract into something concrete.
However, it should be made clear at this point that the prevalent view
according to which a form crops up out of the sum of its parts is erroneous; it is
not made of its parts, but quite the other way around: its parts spring out of a
core form concept and, as it were, they fan out by way of a process set to meet
that concepts functional requirements. Indeed, this may be seen as a tight bond
between Art and Nature, for the various different species also evince a similar
process in taking form: the very human form, for example, did not turn up as a
result of body members added together, but, on the contrary, they came out, as it
were, in serving the life functions of it something observably true of all
organisms. From an alternative perspective, however, beyond this affinity
between Art and Nature in relation to form, the two go up against each other, as
the laws of nature and the natural processes thereof move along entirely different
lines: the imperative of survival in nature dictates adaptation of form to the
conditions, specifications and demands of an unstable, uneven natural
environment, whereas the principal, dominant and basic law in Art rules
encroachment of that which is established, plus ingenuity and a subsequent, new
formal environment brought on with it.
Now, the standing universal agreement on dismissal of imitation comes as
an indisputable testimony to the tenet that pursuit of originality is an inexorable
intrinsic constraint; and allows it to be regarded as a pivotal element in Art.
Consequently, the concept of beautiful in relation to form takes on a different
- 20 -

character in an artistic context in contrast to a natural context, for, as we
maintained in the preceding chapter, an achievement in form-making (picture,
discourse, sound, movement etc.) lies in the quality of it as interesting, meaning
by that the way it was materialized, rather than in a naturally true or not,
naturally agreeable or not presence or feel of its elements. In that sense, even
naturally unpleasant things (such as the depiction of a repulsive sight or the
audition of an irritating sound complex) may be credited as beautiful in the
context of a certain artistic form.
This universal dismissal of imitation alongside persistent pursuit of
authentic originality by the creative artist does not imply depreciation or
rejection of the established form-making processes of the past, but, on the
contrary (and this brings out the moral side of the issue here), it signifies
reverence and admiration of the feats of forerunners; and it is deemed proper as
resisting the allurement of misappropriation.
5

As it happens, the form-making process revolves around two axes, one
positive and one negative. The former is built on the intentions and preferences
of the artist, while the latter reins in the artists imagination, appreciating that
some of the options have already been employed in earlier works by others and
lack, therefore, the trait of genuine inventiveness. Nevertheless, as originality
from scratch, in the sense of a pure and total one, is in reality impossible, new
answers, structures and treating processes are, of course, limited to just some of
the formal elements each time, whereby the concept of style of the period falls
out, denoting each individual artists effort to reach an entirely personal
statement, while in the share of a manifest and typical stylistic homogeneity, here
before referred to as Pervasive Style.
Certain model forms (those which could maybe light a spark and serve as
a starting point to a personal statement) have the high ground within each
pervasive style from time to time; seen as ideal achievements and having been
received as classics of the genre, some of them are, accordingly, judged worthy
to set a lasting example, to emulate even. However, an intense conformism also
set off subsequently, is to blame for running every healthy innovative attempt
down, regrettably more often than not and importunately so in the history of the
Arts indeed even though any such endeavor not only is made specifically out of
respect for what went before, but, in fact, because it stands a better chance of
being brought off as the artists knowledge of the great classics merit of
achievement and ingenuity gets deeper. It might even be argued that while the
History of Art appears to be an interminable chain of phases of change on
various levels, and particularly so on the formal one, in reality, the basic form-
making principles in it remain untouched; notwithstanding clear-cut differences
between, say, a byzantine and a gothic temple, it should be clear to all that the
core complications there awaiting an architectural algorithm with a respective
effect on form are common to both.

5
See Ioannidis: Rationality as Moral Foundation of Art, pp.22-31. Translators Note. To be translated.
- 21 -

Self-guided creative powers and a flaming need for as personal a statement
as possible, within the bounds, of course, of a pervasive style, lead to continuous
innovation, yet with many a creative artist in History to have, often expressly,
stated out that what they do may be something separate, but not quite a different
thing! A letter by 20
th
Century New Music progenitor Arnold Schoenberg to the
editor of Peters Musical Editions', H. Hinrichsen, in February, 1927 is arresting
and enlightening in this regard: to the question often posed to me why do I
no longer compose as when I wrote Verklrte Nacht, I am likely to answer:
That is what I do, but it is not my fault if people do not realize it!.. Let us note
that this Sextet for Strings, the Verklrte Nacht
6
, composed in the post-
Wagnerian harmonic idiom in 1899 had, even that one too, been adversely
received in its first performance; the same work, however, was appealing as very
beautiful and very interesting only thirty years later, as it always happens with the
audience; for it gets accustomed and, therefore, makes out the new musical
language over time. In contrast, the following, supposedly 'revolutionary' etc.,
period was again being dismissed as inadmissibly ill-sounding, even as musically
absurd and so on..! Schoenberg, of course, affirmed doing in 1929 the same
thing as in 1899, almost in astonishment that others could not see it. And that
he is no exception is not all that unfounded, for, say, Byzantine Emperor
Justinian certainly did not suggest he had built something different, but simply
something superior to the grand, splendid and renowned old Jewish temple, by
exclaiming Solomon, I have outdone thee! at the inauguration of the temple of
Hagia Sofia of Constantinople in 537 C.E.
To be sure, form innovation is a rather complicated phenomenon, for the
creative artists inner motivation toward something new and personal involves
several external factors and various other prerequisites to bring it out; and to pin
down firmly its kick off and spin off is not at all easy a thing to do. Let us just
keep in mind though, that in the present work we address issues falling
exclusively into the category of Creative Art, as opposed to the other, that of
Folk Art, where those matters demand another kind of treatment altogether.
Out of a general picture of things, still in an effort to draw as near as
possible to a universal and time-resisting insight, one sees that many individual
factors and various swaying undercurrents act together, as well as separately, to
mold the look of an age in every aspect and at all times. So, let me relate here
only a thought by the great visual artist of the 20
th
century W. Kandinsky: Every
work of art is the child of its age and, in many cases, the mother of our
emotions and he is probably right!
The two key constituents in those reflective words, namely Age and
emotions, are reasonably so laid out in an interactive context, something
which is, nonetheless, likely to misguide one to equivocal assumptions,
depending on perspective. For example, the recurrent view that, on the one
hand, the archaic period of Ancient Greek Sculpture represents the spirit of a
heroic age, whereas accordingly on the other, the respective Hellenistic one

6
Translators Note. (A.k.a.) Transfigured Night, (op.4).
- 22 -

illustrates a curiously romantic-decadent society prone to the superficially
extravagant etc., possibly contains an element of truth in it; yet, it should,
additionally, be taken into serious consideration that a Hellenistic statue such as
the Laocon and His Sons may indeed be expressing its age, but such a
construction would have been practically impossible in terms of technique and
technology at the time of the archaic one anyway! Therefore, the important role
technical means play in the evolvement of systems, styles, as well as sets of
aesthetic ideas and options even cannot be left out; for material in hand, use and
handling know-how of it, plus exploitation of its built-in form-making potential
throw in a critical chip in the molding of the overall spirit of the age, together
with the rest, of course, that determine the evolution of the Arts from within
throughout the Ages. The truth is that various parallel outside forces (such as
historic events, social and religious conflicts etc.), together with individual
artistic disquietude, roll in and blend together to push toward improvement of
existing technical means, to accommodate new and never ceasing form-making
quests. So, the synergy thereof powers the perpetual step by step reform of
pervasive styles.
Art History shows that perennial innovation goes hand in hand with the
progress in technical improvements, form-making processes, expressive
conceptions etc.; and it reveals three rotating phases that whole process
undergoes: unsurprisingly, structural considerations invite artistic attention
during the first phase, since newly found ways in form-making are yet to be fully
tried out; obviously, a surge of expressiveness distinguishes the last phase, again
to no surprise, as the full capacity of the new structural means has been
unraveled by that time; a structural equilibrium between the two takes over the
middle phase. Those three are ordinarily filed as archaic or pre-classical,
classical and romantic, in order of succession.
The reciprocal relationship between Art and its Age is an undeniable fact;
admittedly, every art form displays an own special style every time in history yet
an indisputable intellectual (as well as stylistic) rapport and affinity links up all
art forms within one Age. This is all too clear to go further into. Besides, apart
from the all-embracing or the timeless, the world of symbols, brought up here
earlier, includes also provisional members, in the sense that they are conditioned
on and licensed by the historical moment and the particular social, political,
global etc. circumstances; so, whole historical periods exhibit almost common
features throughout: e.g., the tendency to the impressively ornate and
flamboyant of the Baroque, its inverse in the ensuing Rococo, all those traits
readily identified with 19
th
century Romanticism, the over-expressive
(expressionistic) style of the beginning of the 20
th
century etc.
However, this very direct relationship between Art and its Age has
occasionally been taken advantage of, yet not out of an artistic concern or for
artistic purposes, but with the ambition to give the desired guise to an Age and
to affix a desired connotation to it; in other words, the political or religious
establishment, more than anyone else, has been shown prone to misuse of Art by
- 23 -

pointing up and propping up or imposing even selected formal types to its own
ends, i.e. to display muscle, make an impression, nourish an ideological climate
fit to manipulate the general public and the like.
To be sure, from the various like cases in history, such as, for instance,
the ostentatiously grandiose architecture of ancient imperial Rome or its
Counter-Reformation of the Catholic Church equivalent that foreshadowed the
style of the Baroque, civilization inherited more than a few outstanding works of
art; nonetheless, many an example to steer clear of were also handed down on
other occasions, such as Hitlers Nazi Populist Art and its Stalinist counterpart of
Socialist Realism. We shall come back to this, however, in the next chapter
where we shall take up the question of evaluation in Art.
Another issue related to the question of Form has to do with a special
category of forms, which cannot be told apart by their outline, but rather by their
feel, color etc. clouds, for example, which are identified and listed as cirrus,
cumulus cumulonimbus etc. To be sure, a cloud may happen to take the
transient shape of a face or object, but that accidental occurrence is not
recognized as a formal attribute of the cloud itself. On the other hand, there are
states of form that have a sharp and distinctive identity, even though their
material rules out own outline by definition: liquids, for instance, which take
the shape of the occasional container. So, images of a rough or calm sea etc. are
accordingly also admissive of formal analysis, despite the flux nature of their
outline.
Now, perhaps a clarification is needed here as this chapter is being
brought to a close: That a work of art is recognized only in terms of an
achievement in form-making is founded on the premise that any special
message, emotional content etc. taken in by the audience cannot be
materialized but solely through some element of form (cf. p.91). However, this
stand should not be misread as a formalistic approach to form; particularly in
light of the illuminating particularity that the Greek language incorporates both
the wide-ranging (and clearly of a non-schematic connotation) term of Greek
origin morphe
7
, as well as that of Latin origin forma, which specifically
denotes a fixed, model formal diagram. Now, production of such formal types of
that latter sense is clearly at the heart of the pervasive style formation process, to
be sure and that always, of course, in an active context of ongoing reform (see
pp.19&20). Nonetheless, a misinterpretation of those phenomena has led to a
wrong idea about this interactive relationship between form and pervasive style
and has, subsequently, given rise to the following misapprehensions: Firstly,
form is supposedly furnished as something of a bowl for some content to be
poured into (so all attention is inevitably directed to the content, which is,
additionally, assumed thereby to be chief carrier of artistic expression).
Secondly, that typical process of innovation on established formal types is
reproved of as something extravagant or an ill interest in form even; and it is
indeed sneered upon, therefore, as formalism, pejoratively suggesting by that an

7
Translators Note. cf. Morphology.
- 24 -

ostensive indifference to content! On top of this, this quite normal and expected
mutation of established types is sometimes referred to as a break with form,
often in bewilderment; and, more strikingly so, it is also seen as a bold or daring
move and no less as a phenomenon allegedly exclusive of our times!.. History,
however, teaches otherwise; so, let us consider this salient example, from the
music world once again: If Baroque in Music ends figuratively speaking with
the magnum opus The Art of Fugue by J. S. Bach, it may as well be said that the
Classical period ends figuratively again with the equally majestic in size,
profundity and structural ingenuity Great Fugue, op.133 by L. v. Beethoven.
There is no point in putting here these two masterpieces next to each other in
terms of a technical analysis; let us only note, however, that while both epitomize
an effort to exhaust the structural potential of the fugal formal type (the apex of
the polyphonic musical thought), they are, on the other hand, two entirely
separate and different structural conceptions; and that because, apart from the
principal fugal concept common to both, all other elements of the pervasive style
a key factor of the form-making processes in this respect had been
substantially and markedly altered by the time of the new period, the latter and
later of the two works belongs to.
Finally, let us underscore that the reference often made here and there to
perfect form, in the sense of a faithful and unvarying application of a model, is
but a misconception; for, unlike emulation of a model form, perfection
invariably implies form-making inventiveness, with an aim to achieve an ideal
fusion of partial elements into a self-contained, harmoniously arranged and
expressive composition within the bounds of each pervasive style of course, but
still in an unmistakable effort to break through it at the same time. Last but not
least, continual mimicking of established types and styles exemplary of the
past has with no exception been slated as academism or epigonism etc.; and
it is simply and immediately understood as an outright setback to the normal
advancement of Art.


***






- 25 -



VALUE

1. Value is the sentiment, but also the expression of appreciation over
something.
2. Value is acknowledged in and given to something, to denote special
significance by virtue of a certain property or properties of it. That is to say,
value is given to something; it is not a property of it indeed, it tells more on
the givers end, rather than on the recipients end.
3. Value is defined and couched in terms fit for what is appreciated, pointing
to a scale of assessment accordingly codified.
4. A propertys capability to meet certain needs, materialize desires or live up to
human anticipations is at the heart of appreciation.
5. Appreciated properties, however, are themselves too regarded as self-existent
general values, which fall into moral, intellectual, artistic, practical, material
etc. ones, in line with human needs, endeavors or expectations.
6. Among general values, those of the intellect are the human values per se.
7. A critical eye leading to acknowledgement of value and, subsequently, to a
rating in a scale of assessment is called evaluation.
8. The means or measures of an evaluation are called criteria.
9. Each and every evaluation goes by criteria which can be objective or
subjective, relative or absolute; the same, of course, of ways of going about it,
as well as of conclusions reached through it.
10. Criteria applied in the study, measurement or evaluation of physical
magnitudes, natural phenomena, states and performances are more on the
objective side all the more so when set by scientific or institutional
methodology. On the other hand, those associated with intellectual values
are more on the subjective side, since evaluation of them sits on a scaled set
of values, which are ordered after personal, religious, social, philosophical
etc. considerations, judgments, preferences and practices.
11. Pluralism in viewpoints entails pluralism in scale and rank of value; for
example, the religious sentiment comes first sometimes, whereas the love for
ones country or the sense of social responsibility takes over at other etc.
Pluralism in criteria brings with it dissimilar evaluations of the same object
or event, depending on perspective or ideological standpoint; so
disagreement usually turns up, when dissimilar criteria and diverse scales of
value assessment have been applied along the way.
12. Two concepts with a strong claim to universal and axiomatic validity as well
as to objectivity come up against this extensive relativity of criteria: rarity and
the principle of survival.
- 26 -

13. Once existence-survival is raised to an utmost and absolute value, a whole
scale of secondary principles, ordered after the importance given to each in
proportion to the primary principle-value, follows as a logical consequence.
14. Once placed above all principles-values, the claim of survival necessitates
recognition of the human being as an absolute.
15. When the claim of individual survival is put next to that of the social
wholes, then a generally accepted scaling of values favors the latter at the
expense of the former.
16. If the human being is an absolute value, then the intellect, which tells it
apart from the rest of beings, and particularly the intellectual potential
invested in its works provide an objective criterion of value of those works as
creations of the human intellect.
17. Only a comparative look into congeneric achievements can check and size
up the intellectual potential invested in a work full knowing is an
unassailable prerequisite and a sine qua non to that effect.
18. Rarity makes a generally applicable criterion of evaluation, as for that no
more to size up an achievement or phenomenon than to appraise
commercial value.
19. Achievement implies rarity. Maximum rarity coincides with uniqueness,
which is thus made into a generally accepted evaluative criterion, quasi-
objective for that matter.



***

















- 27 -




Commentary


Value is certainly the most important among the various issues about Art,
all the more so considering that the latter, as a social phenomenon, is an
indispensable part of human life plus that, beyond immediate contact with the
artworks themselves, human beings really cope with natural objects and
phenomena in terms formed through their experience with it, as has been made
clear here earlier (p.171). In other words, Art may indeed be conditioned by the
social set of aesthetic preferences, but it is by itself just as effective a factor in the
making of them, nonetheless.
However, this is only one side of the issue here; for, on the other, the
interactive pair of Art and Aesthetics, specifically, has a crucial bearing on the
wider intellectual fiber of a society and, no less, of its members: it is a verity
those truly concerned with education have already spotted and thoroughly
grasped since Greek Antiquity: it is revealing and amazing that the fully educated
citizen had to be a musician in those times that is to say, trained in the affairs
and ways of the Muses, the Arts. And maybe nothing illustrates that unequaled
mindset more explicitly and more substantially than the remarkable words
Socrates utters in Platos dialogue Pheado, when he recounts a dream urging and
encouraging him to make Music and work at it.
The question here arises though: Do all kinds of Art and of any quality
have that same beneficial bearing on intellectual life? It goes without saying that
any reply to that requires plain elucidation of the concept of quality in Art, as
well as an understanding of Arts effect and after-effect on the general audience
to this end we need to look into the different Art categories and unswervingly
size them up.
According to the general positions set forth in this chapter, evaluation in
the several aspects of Art is in each case conditional to individual or social needs
met, and, therefore, a value assessment scale fit to sort and rank artistic values by
turns up as absolutely necessary. In fact, once we recognize the human being
(and, of course, its mind and intellect) as a supreme value, such a scale can in
effect be ordered, notwithstanding probable subjective divergences likewise, a
corresponding one of categories, genres and types of artistic work and
achievement can be worked out.
Undeniably, intellectual attentiveness and, by all means, its counterforce
of entertainment, in the implicit sense of the term, viz., distracted contact with
Art in an intellectual repose, represent two essentials to a wholesome and poised
- 28 -

function of the human brain. However, if we were to ponder on them with eyes
set on intellectual growth, we would unhesitatingly pick the former as putting
the more decisive share in it.
Attentiveness in this respect reflects the total effort put by the audience to
take in a work of art, in terms of letting it in, making it out and linking up its
structural elements, to assimilate in the end the creative artists toil, i.e. the
painstaking intellectual labor that went in it. In fact, assimilation here points to
communication between the creative artist and the audience; and it embodies
Arts contribution in intellectual advancement. It is indeed worth relating in this
context an observation believed to have been made by Italian Renaissance
painter Raphael: the one, who experiences and comprehends a work of art, rises
to the level of it. So then, evaluation in reality means examining and gauging
that very level of a work of art.
Perhaps we need to reaffirm at this point that we address here only self-
motivated, self-guided, authentically creative and purely original artistic work,
not channeled or somehow engaged art (applied, practical, functional,
ideologically motivated etc.), conceivable achievements of which are evaluated
appropriately according to the extent they manage to live up to their rooted
cause. Therefore, a work seeking to arouse the religious sentiment, stir up the
patriotic spirit, aid the launching of a rally or a call to an uprising etc. will be
evaluated (positively or negatively all the same) clear of its disrobed, self-reliant
and unrestricted artistic value at all times. Nevertheless, let us venture to count
pure artistic value as well as its significance out, and an uninvited turnout is in
store: on the premise that the audiences level is affected, as it were, by way of
sympathetic resonance, we have to accept that that level may of course climb up,
but it may also slip down (when the works level is poor and degrading); and we
have to further admit, subsequently, that second-rate art is not merely non-
positive, but, in fact, out-and-out negative, disserving the audiences intellectual
fiber.
Moreover, besides the audiences willful side (owing to particular interest,
natural bent, relevant training, education etc.), imperceptible factors, still of a
direct effect on temperament, find their way through the complex processes that
make Arts influence on the human intellect possible. So, while an audience
focuses on the extraneous, non-artistic aim of a channeled, funneled,
subordinate, somehow engaged etc. art, the second-rate artistic element lets any
interest left for true artistic value slacken and, even worse, a need-anticipation
for yet another like quality experience is produced by it as an addictive side-
effect, save the wider unsolicited consequences on intellectual life that go with it.
The phenomenon described above is neither imaginary nor hypothetical;
it is a true fact that can be traced throughout the Ages. Yet it thrives in ours.
From commercial up to ideological of all kinds, the reasons behind it are many
and vary on occasion. Stakes in it make avid use of advertisement and
propaganda techniques; and banking on populist rhetoric, indeed resort to it, in
- 29 -

an effort to draw near and bring in large social groups, to get hands on their
favorable attitude.
The trouble is that while all that crafty use of Art puts on a badge of
soaring and momentous intent, in reality we are left with unwelcome
repercussions and hazardous waste of it as a dear forfeit particularly as
populism, used in this case as a lever to that artistic deceit, comes in always
handy to help reel out all kinds of conceited pretense, in a grotesque mishmash
of ignorance and deception (or self-deception for that matter), dragging people to
intellectual deprivation.
The two concepts introduced here earlier, i.e. intellectual potential
invested in artistic creation and rational choice handling of the various
difficulties in the form-making process, appear to defy a widespread notion that
the creating artist acts out of some guiding inspiration. That same notion gets to
the point of taking any intellectual participation of the artist as well as any
rational way of making art for a cutback on immediacy, purity, unaffected
inspiration and the like. In reality no such things take place and those ostensibly
conflicting viewpoints are but a plain misunderstanding; for what is taken to be
unaffected and, therefore, unprocessed can be either one of the following two:
firstly, something done almost automatically (it should be clear that automatic
and non-conscious course of action need be distinguished in this respect, since
we really have to do with actions already tried out and, indeed, expediently
tested at some point in the past, so it takes no additional conscious input to
carry them on); or, secondly, the exact opposite, which involves ideas and
answers found out of intense, painstaking and consciously concentrated effort to
come up with a neat solution to a problem, yet in a way that it let out a sense of
liberation, having the semblance of a flash, of effortlessness etc. (let us mull over
Archimedes Eureka here).
It is more than obvious that inspiration comes only to those working on a
solution to a specific problem, and never still in an irrelevant or unfamiliar field.
And that irrefutably shows that a flash, an unaffected inspiration etc. all have a
meaning quite different from what is ordinarily made of them it should not
evade our attention that even a water spring is but a discharge of existing waters
flowing to the surface from underground, the poetic air about it let aside.
Let us also clear up this the concept of proportion of intellectual
potential does not suggest any quantifiable assessment of the intellectual toil
asked of the artist by the form-making process; it is, on the contrary, a purely
qualitative approach headed clean to the outcome, i.e. to the quality of an
artistic achievement. Of course, appreciation in full consciousness and with a
clear sense of proportion, as well as full awareness of the weight of (or the
painstaking effort put in) a work under evaluation may lead to a somewhat
quantitative understanding of it again mindfully of the inherent weakness that
a measurement unit postulated there is unrealistic, given that measureless
incompatible disparities between individual cases curtail any attempt to reliably
- 30 -

work them out, even when the achievements under comparison as well as the
respective individual artists are of the same high caliber.
History is filled with examples of such disparities among creative artists
and we have, of course, cases concerning true achievements in mind; besides, the
artists struggle with the material is carried out through such a maze of
dissimilar and unfathomable intellectual activities, that to make out and size up
the effort put in it in quantifiable terms is a mere jeopardy and a very shallow
way of going about the matter. In this context, parallels often drawn between
great artists, as well as like comparisons made from time to time, to pronounce
ones toil lighter (Mozart in Music or Picasso in Painting) and anothers toil
tougher (Beethoven in Music or Cavafy in Poetry) in the end, are no doubt, too
conspicuous to go unnoticed
Anyhow, those unfathomable intellectual activities notwithstanding, that
toil cannot be seen in terms of working hours either; the strain to effectively
combine inventiveness with resourcefulness, make the best choice over countless
options (personal finesse as well as taste take here the upper hand), insightfully
grasp formal unities, seek out originality, keep clear of imitation etc., cannot be
fully understood or appropriately rated but through parallel examination of
comparable cases, always intuitively and imprecisely, still only by those possessing
thorough and profound knowledge of the elements involved as well as of the
corresponding context.
Now, the stand that proportion of intellectual potential (intellectual
ingredient, input, or whatever else one chooses to call it) represents the critical
content of a work of art and forms the one objective evaluative criterion to go by
about it is not some arbitrary tenet, but a logical consequence: it follows from
the premise that the human being, as well as the human intellect, on which the
human being relies for survival and existence, have been recognized as a supreme
value; and it also follows as an infallible principle that evaluation in Art should
really assess the degree of contribution in the advancement of human intellectual
life something which takes us to the relationship between Art and the human
being, an issue we need to flesh out below.

*

The relationship between Art and the human being is rich in diversity,
because so are the needs it comes to satisfy. Therefore, an evaluative ranking of
intellectual needs too (in a range between the truly challenging composition and
the undemanding lighter entertainment) leads to a respective one of Art
categories, which come to meet those needs. Let it be made clear, nevertheless,
that category does not secure value needless to say, the point here is made in
reference to unsuccessful or bungled work.
- 31 -

On the other hand, a perfect achievement (i.e. one squaring perfectly
with the specific intention in it) will, inevitably, be evaluated both in terms of
intention and in terms of category of intention. So, a work of a lighter category,
such as a graphic design, for example, i.e. a visual composition made for an
advertising campaign, may be credited even as a perfect form-making
achievement (in its class), still it will never be put side by side a composition
issued out of clean artistic concern (and any such attempt will, no doubt, be
slated see p.92). That evaluative linkage between achievement and intention
authorizes separate assessment approaches to value of an achievement and to size
of it or degree of perfection in it. By and large, evaluations go by various criteria
corresponding to the various different cases of assessment the objects of them
ranging from ordinary human aptitudes up to moral commitments and elevated
intents.
All things considered, however, it is intriguing to observe that all
achievements, artistic or not, are commonly seen as beautiful, and they are,
naturally, so attributed. In other words, the relationship between Art and the
human being is seen from a uniform point of view and it is gauged, more or less,
in terms of a flat generalization, which indiscriminately evens out and equates
the various different instances in it; whereas, in reality, that relationship is always
individualized, enough to tolerate only limited grouping into categories. Be that
as it may, it should be made emphatically clear that, above all, one should be
extremely careful never to mistake aesthetic experience and artistic experience
for two identical concepts in other words, never to confuse this particular sense
of beautiful generated by experiences of occurrences or perceptions of objects,
with its counterpart generated by specific artistic works, since perception and
evaluation of the latter demand different requirements and criteria, as fits to a
personal creation.
More specifically, in a context of pure artistic creation, the sense of
beautiful is cut apart from the beauty (or non-beauty for that matter) of the
elements comprising an artwork and takes on an altogether separate identity
which follows out of appreciation of the whole synthesis; in other words, once
the composition is appreciated in its entirety as an individualized achievement,
then the partial elements of it function as subordinate ingredients of it; and,
finally, the full total outcome is evaluated in terms of need-anticipation for the
artistically interesting element there; and it is satisfaction of that need which
primarily engenders that particular sense of artistic pleasure, whereby the
artistically valuable (artistic value) and the artistically beautiful (artistic beauty)
coincide and become one the same (cf. pp.11 &20).
It is particularly significant to point out, on the other hand, that, as a
rule, an additional aesthetic experience comes along with the audiences
attentive attitude during perception-experience of an artwork; that experience
involves a concurrent joy born not out of a rational process, but out of
fulfillment of various other needs-anticipations conditioned for the most part by
human nature innate or acquired, they are, at any rate, more universal and
- 32 -

time-resisting in texture. Subsequently, the audience of, say, a literary piece or
painting will live that positive or negative aesthetic experience in a spontaneous
response to the works partial elements (proportions, analogies, contrasts etc.), by
virtue of a limitless symbolic potential of them, as elaborated on here earlier.
It seems that the distinction between the simple aesthetic experience and
the more complex artistic experience in reality a split into two separate ways to
take in a work of art has also been made in the past: it is instructive enough to
note, for example, that a series of less sophisticated music scores was published
during the Late Baroque, with the following clarifying header: For both
connoisseurs and amateurs (Fr Kenner und Liebhaber) which shows that the
distinction suggested by it might even refer to skills asked of the instrumentalists.
However, a solid testimonial to a deep-reaching grasp of that duality
comes from the phenomenal artistic genius of W. A. Mozart, thanks to the
following excerpt on Piano Concertos K.V.413 and K.V.415 from a letter to his
father (12-28-1782): These concerts are a fortunate medium between what is too
easy and too difficult they are very brilliant, pleasing to the ear, and natural,
without being vapid here and there even connoisseurs can find pleasure in
them still in a way that non-connoisseurs too will be satisfied without
knowing why.
Nevertheless, Plato had moved ahead to judge harmonic relations in
terms of value to the listening human being long before Mozart; indeed in
considering them as an imitation of divine harmony, he treated them as
furnishing pleasure thereby to the unintelligent and to the intelligent that
intellectual delight (Timaeus, 80b).
No one can deny, of course, that a certain unevenness does exist in and
among audiences indeed, though we find it difficult to consent to a distinction
between intelligent and unintelligent listeners; we can accept, however, that the
dividing line between aesthetic value-beauty and artistic value-beauty authorizes a
ranking of the respective experiences, given that sense of beauty in the former
case is produced in a more reflexive way, whereas a higher degree of
attentiveness, and, therefore, a higher degree of intellectual participation is asked
of the audience in the latter. Thereby, the artistic experience no doubt stands
first, given that, among other reasons, it somehow, so to speak, includes an
aesthetic experience in it as well.
We may go over an evaluation of related experiences (see p.37) and
roughly place at the lowest rank of the scale that audiences response which is
limited to a feeling of simple pleasure; we may place next there pleasure realized
to the point of conscious delight; and, finally, place admiration born of the
acknowledgement of an artistic-aesthetic achievement at the top. And on this
uppermost level Art is really set apart as Art and the human being is really set
apart as a human being.
This is the level on which we acknowledge in the creation of a work of art
an accomplished achievement of painstaking intellectual labor that has brought
into existence a complete and living organism as though the unfaltering breath
- 33 -

of an ageless spirit had been infused into them (Plutarch): it is the level on
which originality, authenticity and genuineness reclaim their true meaning,
whereas their opposites are rejected and reproached as a deceit or self-deceit,
anyway...
Itself an offspring of comprehension of the kind of work it takes to
elaborate on and develop an idea further to the point of accomplishing a form-
making achievement, admiration represents, in essence, actual intellectual
pleasure; and that is the inestimable and wonderful return of true Art to the
human being, on which the concept of Value in Art is instituted.
And, of course, while technical or scientific achievements obey the
imperative of physical preservation and meet the exigencies of life, and they,
therefore, add to progress by improving day-to-day living quality, Art, on the
other hand, points toward quality of intellectual life and looks after preservation
and enhancement of it; let it be borne in mind, nevertheless, that as Art exceeds
its own boundaries and affects all intellectual life by osmosis, its contribution to
progress increases, spurring parallel steps forward in the scientific and
technological fields thereby making its worth and significance truly invaluable.

*

It has been made quite clear that we examine here the nature and
significance of Creative Art exclusively, but that should not be taken for a
denigrating attitude that discredits Folk Art: in expressing a collective
unconscious as a connective tissue, as it were, that binds a social, national or
ethnic group together, it behaves in a way entirely dissimilar to Creative Art; it
answers, nonetheless, to just as important human needs through corresponding
aesthetic experiences provided, of course, that it does not relinquish autonomy
as well as its chaste, disarming simplicity and propinquity.
Let it be underscored in this respect that a mutual influence haphazardly
taking place between those two Art categories is something perfectly normal and
healthy, capable of yielding benefits to both, on the standing condition that the
essential traits of neither are corrupt in the way; otherwise, the hybrids produced
thereby are spurious and any such mixture is nothing less than outright
adulteration.




***


- 34 -





Postface

I
n the foregoing chapters we went over the subject of Art in a fairly concise
manner, in plain and practical terms, as well as clear of ideological pretenses and
cognitive biases as possible. Nonetheless, my commitment to a rational
treatment of the issues raised here should not be mistaken for blind certitude on
my part, as if absolutely safe conclusions are, therefore, tightly secured; to be
sure, the Aristotelian remark pointed out earlier (p.24) applies equally to all
and for all time. Then again, even if we consider the Heraclitian wisdom to
speak truth and consciously to act according to nature entirely sound, still it
should not skip our mind that both he and we speak of nature as we know it
through our senses; nor should we rule out that science is not unlikely to set us
free from such illusory perceptions one day; till then, however, we cannot do
otherwise but have faith in our own eyes and ears.
As far as I am concerned, I profess to put trust in my own senses and
responses indeed trying to keep within the bounds of common sense; so, if I
am somehow misguided, at least I make mistakes of my own! instead of echoing
other peoples voices or mistakes Nor could I leave aside, of course, the fact
that Art is a social phenomenon, or else, an entirely personal review of it, cut off
from the social standpoint, would run, for this reason, the risk of coming up
with findings of decreased objectivity.
Still, to delve into other peoples genuine views and responses is not easy
at all; no matter what the connection or involvement of them with Art, their
natural and instant grip, as well as their sense of own response to it, are mostly
impaired by standing preconceptions pitched and insisted on by presumed
authorities as argumenta auctoritatis in a way that, not all that infrequently, one
can well-nigh pin down an astounding oddity breezing in, of people feeling one
thing while believing or even asserting they feel another! In those cases, indeed
to make certain, one needs to fall back on the midwifing method
In other words, we often witness art-lovers found in perplexity amidst
several, even clashing views on Art (about substance, function, role as well as,
above all, significance and value of it) notions, really, fashioned under various
circumstances, from all kinds of starting points, to an assortment of purposes
- 35 -

and ambitions, with a backing of respectively expedient arguments hardly
founded on the sturdy grounds of a rigorous command of the subject matter,
and yet fully shrouded as entrenched theories. As a result, in coming to terms
with the simple truth that what pleases is beautiful, the average Art audience,
injudiciously as it were, slides toward the fallacy of an unwarranted deduction:
that which is not pleasing is not beautiful!
It is, of course, self-evident that personality traits determine ones likes or
dislikes education, social and family background etc., in effect whatever weighs
in on the formulation of personal aesthetic and artistic preferences. In fact, this
claim to individuality sanctions the widespread understanding of the beautiful as
subjective in character even as one might as well take on to group art audiences
into categories. At any rate, the truth is that a reasonable, methodical review of
the specifics, for the most part, straightens out plenty of misunderstandings
frustrating interlocutors included.
However, various advocates of views or notions that actually take up Art
not for what it really is, but, if truth be told, for an expedient way to prop up
other, conceptual, speculative, ideological or circumstantial designs, swiftly haste
to take advantage of those misunderstandings. So then, patently contemptuous
of innovative artistic moves in their time, many a figure of conservative thought,
and even some brilliant minds along with them (from Plato up to this day, each
for ones own reasons), have drawn on the audiences negative attitude, to
demonstrate clear miss of all novelty adding to an endless series of notorious
like cases, to be traced all over history, inasmuch as the audience, quite
understandably so, happily enjoys more that which it has grown familiar and
identifies with.
On the other hand, we should not play down the fact that we appreciate
as artistically valuable today that which, as a rule, was progressive and innovative
at the moment of its creation! disdain for all epigonism, even on the part of the
most fervent upholders of established taste in Art, serves as a testimony to it.
This should not lead us on, nevertheless, to the wrong idea and just as
fallacious a deduction that all innovative moves bear for that reason alone
artistic value in them only we need to clear up in this respect that those are not
to be closed out, for another creative artist may happen to see an idle potential
there and make more out of it, in the form of a more advanced application and
more to the point. For Art, even as an entirely personal and individualized
creation still contains an element of collectiveness in it; History provides
numerous corroborating examples: many very worthwhile works have built on a
fresher and neater utilization of novelty, which had failed to outclass the status
of just a bare move of innovation at the moment of its creation, despite the
interesting element present in it. And anyway, most of the masterpieces we
admire are really a resultant, as it were, of the sum of forces already lying in
earlier, lesser works in nuce.
Judging by its implications, however, one of the most serious
misconceptions on novelty has to do with the negative, condescending,
- 36 -

sometimes even entirely dismissive frame of mind toward 20
th
Century Art,
which reduces it to a bit of a sign of social degeneracy or peculiar artistic
wickedness etc. via the all-purpose and almost derogatory label of Modernism.
To be sure, very superficially carried out, as well as mixed with ideological
prejudice and ignorance, both in generous doses, philosophical analyses too paid
a good service to the shaping of an inimical climate against New Art in this
respect: But first of all, the very term Modernism hints at a purportedly
unfounded, mystifying preoccupation with the chase of that which is new in Art,
while, in point of fact, that very hunt is but the true essence of all Art and the
term itself is, therefore, both incorrect and ill-meant; after all, aspiring to shake
off, as it were, those preceding it, every Age in History had proclaimed itself
Modern since time immemorial.
What really takes place here is that unremitting pursuit for new means of
artistic expression wears down the active Systems stylistic capability for relatively
original creative work, bringing along with it change to the way the theme
element is worked out and dealt with in terms of form. Therefore, as that
thematic element is next worked up, gradually, as well as unavoidably it moves
away from patterns nearer to and associated with the beautiful by nature. For
example, the typical expressionist and cubist painters leaning to warped forms is
owed less to a need to depict edge-expressive states of emotion etc., than to a
pursuit for new ways to conceive of and elaborate on thematic material and that
in synergy with the rest of factors impinging on the form-making process (cf.
pp.21&22).
It is obvious, that this reproof of novelty etc. lays bare utter ignorance of
the difference between the aesthetic and the artistic experience, as well as of the
respective terms of evaluation; utter ignorance that the sense of beautiful born
out of natural responses is entirely different to the corresponding sense born out
of admiration for the interesting quality in an artistic achievement; that the
(visual or literary) rendition of an object or event can be beautiful (as for that
even masterful), while that object or event may itself happen to be repulsive and
vice versa (I believe that any sensible reader could spare the need for examples on
that).
Therefore, having broken away from the ideal beauty model of Apollo or
Venus, Avant-guard Art is, subsequently, not respected as beautiful (and was
ruled out flat by past century totalitarian regimes, for that reason, that is to say,
out of alarm it might bring about a twist on supposedly refined taste and the
corresponding healthy aesthetic preferences of the people see also pp. 22,
23&40). Now, that is a stale stand, to be sure; still, one might even bear with it
in light of the confrontational ideological backdrop that spawned it; it is
altogether impenetrable and confounding, however, that there existed
intellectuals (otherwise progressive) who not only hastily denounced all
novelty, but even expressly regarded it as a manifestation of a sick societys
decadence etc. Far from us to argue for the healthiness of the first half of the
20
th
century society; yet, by the same token, neither can we brush aside the grave
- 37 -

social diseases of the Art Age of the undisputedly beautiful, which, curiously
enough, somehow made it sparkling clean despite them.

*

The difference between the aesthetic and the artistic experience is of a
much deeper meaning and goes beyond the bounds of a bare theoretical
observation. In fact, all aspects of the relationship between Art and the human
being are strictly linked to it, not just because it shapes the way we look at Art,
weighing it up etc., but also because it impinges on the effects, side-effects and
after-effects of it thereof; for, in actual fact, an audience set before an aesthetic
phenomenon feels, sees or listens to things other than those felt, seen or listened
to in a work of art (provided, of course, the audience does not handle the latter
too as a simple aesthetic phenomenon!).
On the level of a simple aesthetic experience, the audience will, no doubt,
feel the particular pleasure given by a work of art, yet with no further concern as
to its true value; it will call it beautiful, feel an extra pleasure coming from the
realization of the one just felt and probably arrive at a certain stage of admiration
only, this admiration will solely refer to the artworks capacity to give pleasure
and nothing more! On the level of an artistic experience, on the other hand, the
essential and crucial difference lies in that admiration there refers to the quality
of the work; and it comes out of appreciation of an intellectual achievement in
it, counting in all the partial elements that jointly count up to the
accomplishment of it also elements such as the power of imagination,
inventiveness, appositeness of aesthetic choices, to mention a few out of a long
series of elements culminating to uniqueness and exceptionality of a work of art.
This kind of admiration (of the work and not of the pleasure given by the
work) presupposes, of course, capability to appreciate all that comprise an artistic
achievement, both in terms of its partial elements and as a whole) a capability
attained either through special training during ones formulation age or through
simple, yet direct and lengthy involvement in the ways of an art form. And, in
point of fact, that admiration represents enhancement of a simple aesthetic
experience by the discerning pleasure the recognition of an interesting
intellectual achievement brings with it.
The points here above also clear up situations seeming complicated at first
glance, such as conflicting responses to works or categories of them, which,
however pedestrian, poor or embellished by imitation, are seen as beautiful by
those looking only for simple pleasure or entertainment, while the same works
are seen as dreadful and worthless by those intellectually more demanding in
fact, invariable rejection of any imitation traits in a work, alongside the
dismissive stand toward all epigonism and no less of works which may indeed
give some undeniable aesthetic pleasure, attest beyond reasonable doubt to the
fundamental distinction between the simple aesthetic experience and the more
complex artistic one. All that, of course, within the context of original creative,
- 38 -

personal and signed artistic work; for anonymous Folk Art grows and operates
on an another plane and framework, not too different from that of a natural
occurrence.
The above should be taken into serious consideration certainly by those
caring for a beneficial function of Art, as well as for the latters contribution to
the intellectual growth of the human being particularly by those engaged in an
active relevant role, such as sociologists, educators, holders of a public office or
intellectuals in general; and they in their turn should not close their eyes to the
truth that as much as true Art elevates the human being intellectually, equally as
much can poor and pretentious art be useless to it, detrimental even.
In conclusion, we should never fail to bear in mind the most important
difference between the aesthetic and the artistic experience, as we have
repeatedly pointed out in this brief and concise examination of the various
aspects of Art; for the simple aesthetic experience represents a quasi-natural-
automatic, therefore non-rationally conscious human response, whereas the
artistic experience, firstly, incorporates the aesthetic experience as such and,
secondly, demands active involvement of the audience, so that it may grasp,
comprehend, appreciate, admire and partake of in a vein of Methexis the
intellectual achievement of a work of art to get full and fine pleasure from it in
the end. So, finally, by taking into account the interactive nature of the various
mental functions of the human being and how those impinge on each other (cf.
pp.32&33), one realizes fully the role and contribution of Art in our
constitution and development as intellectual beings.