FYI logo

Aesthetics

by Earl Carlson 3 months ago in Pop Culture
Report Story

Perceptual and Conceptual

Let me say first, there is no magic line that cleanly divides the aesthetic from the non-aesthetic. Nor is there any way to define with accuracy the term aesthetic. The best we can do is dance around the subject and hope to stimulate your thoughts on the matter.

The one thing that we can say with certainty is that aesthetics involves the inter-relationships of the constituent elements of the work of art. Many years ago, there was a Star-Kist commercial in which Charley the Tuna plays on the harp to demonstrate his good taste. When his companion remarks that he is playing only the same note over and over again, he replies, “It’s a great note. Beethoven used it all the time.” The point is that no musical note or, for that matter, no line or no color is beautiful in and of itself, but only as it relates to others in its immediate environment. It may even be argued, though I don’t intend to do so here, that we can perceive no single note, no single line, no single color, except in relation to its environment.

Aesthetics then, or art, if you please, is a mysterious something that either occurs or does not occur in a work as a consequence of the interrelating of the constituent elements – be they musical notes, lines, textures, colors or even ideas – of the work in question.

No one, not the greatest philosophers, not the greatest artists, not the greatest musicians, can tell why some aesthetic relationships in a composition constitute great art while others create mediocrities. And this is as it should be. Once we fully understand these relationships, they hold no further interest for us. If there were no mystery to art, then no artist would want to paint. The making of art is the process of creation, and one cannot create that with which one is already familiar.

Now, if I may, I should like to discuss the two different – though still intimately related – types of aesthetics. It would all be very neat and convenient if we could cleanly divide conceptual art from perceptual, or pre-conceptual, art. Unfortunately, with no exception that comes to mind, every art medium has elements of both conceptual and perceptual relationships.

Perceptual or (emphatically) pre-conceptual aesthetics is best illustrated by reference to music. When we hear a succession of musical notes that fall pleasingly on the ear, pleasure is immediate. It is immediate, not only in a temporal sense but also in a physiological sense. It is immediate in that it is pre-conceptually pleasing. We experience pleasure before we can formulate the thought, “Well now, that is just the sort of song Aunt Sophia would have liked to sing if she had known how to sing.” or, “That music sounds so much like an apple I can almost taste it.” In other words, perceptual appreciation occurs at a point in the psychological and neurological circuitry somewhere between the initial perception and the arousal of associational concepts that have been stimulated by our perception.

As we are endowed at birth with five senses, so are there five categories of perceptual aesthetics. Of course, visual art and music, corresponding to sight and hearing, come immediately to mind. But might we not also include the culinary arts, which rely on the senses of taste and smell? Though I am not, myself, an aficionado, I am assured by those self-proclaimed gourmands among my acquaintances, that a competent chef is, indeed, an artist. We must also include tactile aesthetics here. The blind, can appreciate the aesthetic quality of sculpture by merely feeling it. And the deaf may, to some degree, enjoy music by feeling the vibrations they cannot hear.

But I promised you five categories of perceptual aesthetics, and so far, I have offered only four, though all five senses have been spoken for. The fifth category, which I shall call kinesic aesthetics – to my knowledge no one else has given it a name or recognized it at all for that matter – may involve, to some extent, the sense of touch. But it also requires a sixth sense not usually acknowledged as such: the sense of self, the innate knowledge of our place and presence in space. Kinesic aesthetics is typified by dance – not the performance as seen by the spectator – but as experienced by the performer in the execution of the dance. The dancer feels, though she cannot see them, every expression and gesture of her body during the performance. And she feels aesthetic gratification in proportion to the quality of her performance.

Conceptual aesthetics, on the other hand, involves the relationships of the ensuing concepts and ideas that have been stimulated by perceptual awareness. Whereas in a painting, we derive aesthetic pleasure from the relationship of colors as we perceive them, in a novel, we may derive a similar measure of aesthetic pleasure from the relationship of ideas, characters, and situations as we conceive them.

We have, then, two discernibly different types of aesthetic relationships, the conceptual and the pre-conceptual, or perceptual. But, merely because there is a discernible and describable difference, we cannot conclude that one exists independently of the other, or even that one does not crucially affect the other.

First, let us establish that a work of art does indeed involve both perceptual and conceptual relationships. The presence of both forms of relationships is perhaps most evident in poetry: the perceptual relationship being typified by the rhythms and the rhymes, and the conceptual relationship by the ideas and images conveyed by the poem. In prose, although both types of relationships are still present, the conceptual relationships are more complex and assume greater importance, while perceptual relationships play a lesser role.

Conversely, as one might well expect, in the so-called perceptual arts, typified by the visual and musical arts, it is the perceptual or pre-conceptual relationship that dominates. In the visual arts, more so than the musical arts, conceptual relationships are apparent. Many paintings, of course, have specific subject matter and moralistic or religious themes. And even in the modern, non-objective art, there is still a hint of subject matter, whether or not the artist intended it or was even aware of it.

However – and this may well be the single most misunderstood point of all in art appreciation – merely because conceptual relationships exist in perceptual art, these conceptual relationships do not necessarily have aesthetic value. They do not necessarily serve any higher function than as a tool to order the perspective, as a stepping stone into the visual realm of the painting. Visual aesthetics must always predominate in aesthetic judgments rendered by the visual artist, as well as in critical judgments rendered by the viewer.

Art historians and critics often speak of twentieth-century aesthetics as opposed to the aesthetics of an earlier age. In this, they betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the term. What they really mean when they speak of the new aesthetics is the changing styles and gimmickry that enjoy transient popularity with art-biz participants. Artistic styles and gimmicks come and go in response to changing social and technological conditions. But aesthetic values are constant; they remain as they have been these countless centuries since that first receptive troglodyte stepped out of his cave to marvel at the colors of the setting sun.

Most people can appreciate a sunset. Why then are they unable to appreciate the aesthetic value of non-objective art? Actually, their confusion stems in large part from the pseudo-sophisticated bullshit that enjoys such current popularity. We have all been taught in elementary school and beyond that art is the representation of some physical reality. A picture is a picture only when it is a picture of something. When confronted with non-objective art, most people try from force of habit to see some tangible object in the painting. Failing this, they willingly accept the word of any would-be guru who steps forward with an explanation, no matter how ludicrous that explanation may be.

And so we have had dada, surrealism and pop-art and countless varieties of “really cool stuff” as though anyone with a neat idea could just grab a brush and create art. Real artists, as do scientists, operate on the ragged edge of understanding – groping through gray uncertainty. They are to the pop artist and the illustrator what Albert Einstein was to the parlor magician.

Pop Culture

About the author

Earl Carlson

My stories/essays have appeared in the Eunoia Review: the Blue Lake Review: Firewords Quarterly, the Beorh Quarterly, and The Mensa Bulletin, Buried Letter Press: and Novella T, among others.

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights

Comments

There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2022 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.