weitz art who needs it.pdf
Post on 14-Apr-2018
232 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
7/30/2019 weitz art who needs it.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/weitz-art-who-needs-itpdf 1/10
Art: Who Needs It?Author(s): Morris WeitzSource: Journal of Aesthetic Education, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Jan., 1976), pp. 19-27Published by: University of Illinois PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3332006
Accessed: 01/12/2010 23:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Aesthetic Education.
http://www.jstor.org
7/30/2019 weitz art who needs it.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/weitz-art-who-needs-itpdf 2/10
Art:Who Needs It?
MORRIS WEITZ
Is there really anything left to say on the topic assigned: "The Uses of
the Arts in Personal Life and Professional Practice?" Philosophersand
critics have long ago exhausted the varieties of the first uses; and
ProfessorBroudyhas already said most of what is useful on the second
of the uses as well of course much of significance on the first because,after all, his mind, like his heart, is in philosophy. Since I cannot hopeto improve on what the great historical philosophers and critics or
some of the fine contemporaryeducatorshave said, all I can do usefullyis to remind you of some of the issues, both central and peripheral,that are involved in the problem posed.
First, there is the distinction between art as created object as againstart as consumer object. I take it our question relates to the latter, so
that we are not especiallyconcerned with what art does to its producers.
However, I must confess that I find that problem as fascinating aswhat it does to those of us who cannot do more to art than respond to
it. Certainly some artists have been intrigued by the problem, so much
so that certain major writers at any rate have devoted whole novels
or novellas to it. I think, for example, of Joyce's Portrait of the Artist
as a Young Man or Thomas Mann's Tonio Kr6ger. Both ask, as other
writers do, What is the price of becoming a total artist, hence of for-
saking the ordinaryconcerns and emotions of life? The cost, they find,
MORRISWEITZ is professor of philosophyat Brandeis
University. Amongthe
important volumes he has written are Hamlet and the Philosophy of LiteraryCriticism; Philosophy in Literature; and Problems in Aesthetics, ed.
This paper was presented at a three-day interdisciplinary conference "The Uses
of Knowledge in Personal Life and Professional Practice" held at the Universityof Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in September, 1974, upon the occasion ofProfessor Harry S. Broudy's retirement as professor of philosophy of education
from the University of Illinois.
7/30/2019 weitz art who needs it.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/weitz-art-who-needs-itpdf 3/10
20 MORRISWEITZ
is high and, at least for them, worth it; indeed, it is all that is of value
or that they can afford as dividends on their invested capital in art.
The sacrifices of the all too human and the alienation of the creative
type seem to vanish as one turns from what art does to the artist to
what it does to us. For a striking effect of art on our lives is that art
replenishes without depletion as it makes us whole without isolation
from our fellow human beings. It is therefore no wonder that manydefenders of art and our participation in it by way of response to it
have stressed this singularly spiritual contribution of art'spresence. Forthem, the use of the arts is simple- to enhance human development.
Unfortunately, however, as we all know, there have been great minds
and cultivated souls who do not share in this conviction of the en-
nobling use of art. Plato, for one, at least in the Republic, where
political considerations are dominant, devastates the Greek as well as
perennial assessmentof art as a good. It is not only not good but, with
a very few exceptions, downright harmful in the manner in which it
sponsorsfiction and falsehood and engendersfeelings and emotions that
endanger morals and the rational life altogether. For Plato, art has nouse. Better a personal life and a professional practice in which the in-
tellectual and moral virtues prevail to submerge the aesthetic or, per-
haps, artistic, since Plato, even at his most brutal, praises the beautiful
as he condemns the artistic.
Plato does not distinguish the uses from the misuses of art. Tolstoydoes. Like Plato, he denounces much, perhaps most, of the history of
art, not simply because this art enfeebles us but because it does not
make us whole in a communal sense. For him, art has a great use - to
effect through shared feelings a universal brotherhood of man. Mostart, he proclaims, forsakes this ideal in order to promote emotions and
ideas that serve an effete elitism which divides mankind.
As incredible and repulsive as all of us, I hope, find the strictures
on art and its proper uses or misuses in Plato and Tolstoy, their state-
ments are difficult to defeat by argument and almost impossible to
mitigate in practice, especially in a world such as ours in which art and
artists are still considered dangerous, even in their ascribedimpotence.
Any one, from soft-hearted humanist arguing with hard-headed scien-
tist, to soft-headed teacher pleading with hard-hearted administrator,
recognizes the echoes of the Platonic-Tolstoian arguments against the
arts: that they do not promote knowledge whereas they do encourageundesirablemoral and social acts. Who needs it since art is not science
and can stir up the wrong feelings? No one. And it is no repudiation
7/30/2019 weitz art who needs it.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/weitz-art-who-needs-itpdf 4/10
ART:WHONEEDS T? 21
of this rejection of art, rather a variant on it, to provide a minimum,ornamental place for the arts in our lives and in our schools. Art, ac-
cording to this view, has no real use; but taken in small doses, it causes
little harm. Like play and sport, it relaxes tensions and allows us to
returnrefreshedto the serious concernsof life.
Aristotle offered a ploy of this sort, though of course in a more
sophisticated vein. Tragedy at least has a use, to purge us of the emo-
tions of pity and fear that, put into the context of his book on govern-
ment, serves as a therapeutic to the citizens of a healthy body politic.Plato, he suggestsin the Poetics, is wrong in his interpretationof art as
false and his fear of art as emotionally harmful. And Tolstoy, he would
have said, is also incorrect in his insistence on true, simple emotional
art rather than difficult ideational art. Tragedy, for example, thoughnot quite philosophy or science- episteme- is in its universality at
least an approximation of knowledge and truth. Anyway, it is better
than history so far as knowledge is concerned. Thus, for him art has a
use, rather two uses: to teach us certain truths in a non-abstract,
easily understood form; and to relieve us of tensions that could beharmful outside of the theateror the world of art.
There are, to be sure, other theories of the uses of art that challengeand repudiate Plato's or Tolstoy's stringent views or Aristotle'ssensible
compromise. From Plotinus on, philosophers have tried to find an
inexpugnably high place for art in the hierarchy of values. For Plo-
tinus, art is primarily soul invested in matter - a creative act that
brings both the artist and the spectator closer to reality. Thus, the use
of art in personal life is like the use of philosophy: to facilitate the
journey to the One. With a single thrust, then, that devoted follower ofPlato demolishes his master'sanimadversionson the falsity and degra-dation attributed to art. However we assess the metaphysical, mystical
premises of Plotinus's argument for the divine analogue of art, we
cannot but applaud his as the first of a series of stunning victories for
the declaration that art has a great use in human affairs- to remind
us of the presence of soul in matter or, in more contemporary terms,of the creative process in the imagination as it labors over mundane
matter.
Aquinas also finds the radiance of soul in art, as a constant reminderof the divine in creation. For him too, art has a primaryuse in human
life- to rendervisible or empirical religious truths; and, in its integra-tion of sensuousmaterials, to make art possible for all who can see or
read even though they are not capable of assimilationof abstract truth
7/30/2019 weitz art who needs it.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/weitz-art-who-needs-itpdf 5/10
22 MORRISWEITZ
that is embodied in art but comprehended only by philosophy and
theology. In a tradition which allowed for powerful prelates to excori-
ate and suppress the supposed idolatry of religious ornamentation,
especially of the glitter and gold in the cathedrals, Aquinas's justifica-tion of art in the home of the divine stands firm as an analogue of
Aristotle's reply to Plato. Reverting to Aristotle's notion of art as
techne, Aquinas also formulated a use of art in professional practice.Art he said is a virtue--an excellence--of the practical intellect,
bent on the making of objects; as a virtue, it is on a par with morality,another virtue of the practical intellect that aids in the production of
good acts. Together, his two uses of art ensured an intellectual respect-
ability to the whole artistic enterprise, a respectability that rests on
discipline and hard work as much as it does on inspiration. We will do
well to rememberAquinas'sinsistence on craftsmanshipand the intelli-
gence it embodies in an age such as ours in which art for too many
signifies caprice and narcissisticindulgence, the very opposites of pro-fessionalpractice in the arts.
What, now, about art and pleasure? Surely one use of the arts is toprovide gratifications that are either unobtainable in real life or are
not possible for all. And, of course, the history of aesthetics contains
many such explorations into the use of the arts. From Hume to San-
tayana, the hedonic justification of art has played a major role, where
at least part of this justification has centered on the way the arts offer
sources of pleasure and gratification we cannot secure otherwise.
Perhaps I have said enough to remind you of the diversity in the
answers to our posed problem: art has no use; art has misuses; art has
a use. Is any of these theories true? This question brings me to thesecond distinction- the first, you remember, was the distinction be-
tween the use of art to the artist and the use to the consumer- the
distinction between the factual and the normative. What does art do
for us? What ought art to do for us? The confusion or conflation of
the factual with the normative is as nefarious in aesthetics as it is in
ethics. Most of the theories I have already mentioned obliterate this
distinction. Tolstoy is an exception. He saw what art was doing to our
lives, hated what he saw, and strove to persuade us of a new ideal use
of art. Whatever we may think of his ideal, especially of the conse-
quences for art in accepting his ideal, Tolstoy, it seems to me, is abso-
lutely correct in differentiating what art does and what it should and
can do. Indeed, I wish to go even further than Tolstoy and suggestthat the factual question is properly one for psychology or sociology,
7/30/2019 weitz art who needs it.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/weitz-art-who-needs-itpdf 6/10
ART:WHO NEEDS T? 23
but not for philosophy. The actual uses of art must be as multiple as
the varieties of response or exploitation of the arts. What, therefore,would be important is not a mere survey of these but the formulation
of a generalizationor hypothesisabout the cause and effects of art and
life. Freud, for example, offered such an hypothesis- that art is a
form of sublimation, both to the artist and to the spectator, a kind of
substitute gratification of basic libidinal desires we cannot realize in
our lives. Art, along with alcohol and religion, is an escape-valve for
our bottled up miseries,sharedby all who cannot have their civilizationwithout its discontents. Freud'sis a brilliant theory; and for all I know,it may be true. The great difficultywith it, as Popper and others have
taught us, is that it is no scientific hypothesis at all, rather a piece of
artistic fiction in its own imaginative right, posing as a scientific law
but without the requisitepossibilityof disconfirmation.All the philoso-
pher can say of Freud's theory- or of any other theory- is that if it
were a scientific hypothesis, subject to refutation, and if it were true,that fact would reduce the normative question to nonsense.For there is
no point in asking how art ought to affect our personal lives if as amatter of fact there is only one way it does and no other way it might.
Fortunately, for me anyway, there is no scientific law about the uses
of art. This deficiency allows the philosopher or whoever to continue
his perennial exhortations of normative answers to our posed question.And by way of courtesy,it allows me to state my own deep convictions
about what art should and can do, if only we let it. Here, then, at last,is my answer to What are the uses of the arts in personal life and pro-fessional practice?
For me, the great gifts of the arts to our lives are the two of enlarge-ment and intensity. Each of the arts in variousways opens up by means
of its actualities of visual, verbal, tonal, or emotional and intellectual
worlds created by the artist infinite imaginative possibilitiesof experi-ence and at the same time an awarenessof the richness of the texture
of actual experience. This is what I mean by enlargementand intensity:the expansion of the realm of possibilities for personal experience and
the intensification of the experiences already had. Philosophy achieves
this too but only on an intellectual level, governed as it is or should be
by standardsof objective truth. Some art, for example, great works of
literature, can satisfy this demand for truth. But all art, including
literature, goes beyond the stringenciesof the quest for truth in its own
exploration of largelynon-intellectual enlargement and intensity. Paint-
ing, for example, creates universe on universe of different ways of
7/30/2019 weitz art who needs it.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/weitz-art-who-needs-itpdf 7/10
24 MORRISWEITZ
seeing the world or a non-existent world the artist creates for himself,as in abstract painting or surrealism.An individual painting representsa visual world that in its concentration on one way of seeing intensifies
our own vision as it invites us to participate in a new visual experience.Whether it is a Giotto or a Martini, a Leonardo or a Raphael, a van
Eyck or a van der Weyden, a Picasso or a Matisse, a Jackson Pollock
or a De Kooning, we are given a new way of looking at our world
or the world created by the painter which at the same time changes and
intensifies our present perceptual responses.What greater gift can artbestow on us than to make us see for the first time and to see differentlyat the same time? We all know what it is to look at a Cezannelandscapein which his intensityof vision and form is so serenelymonumental that
we cannot but marvel both at his created world and at the inevitable
difference it makes to our present and future perceptions. His land-
scape invites us to see nature the way he does as it forces us to see what
we thought we saw but only glanced at, and with a visual intensity bor-
rowed from him. If, therefore, we transform our omnibus question of
the uses of art to What does a Cezanne landscape do for us? theanswer is that it changes our vision of the world. This, I submit, is no
mean achievement. An Einstein or a Kant can also change our visionof the world but only in a figurative sense, because theirs are truly
conceptual changes, not changes in visual experience, especially if we
take seriouslyas we must the distinction between mathematics or ideas
and images as basic to physics and philosophy. Cezanne, on the con-
trary,literally changes or invites us to change the way we see the world
--its colors, shapes, textures, lines, composition, monumental form.
And when I turn from a Cezanne to a Jackson Pollock or back again toa Leonardo, I find the same unity of enlargement and intensity. Each
invites me to a new awareness of visual possibilities, either a world
dissolved in plastic abstract rhythmsor a world ensconced in a penum-bra of chiaroscuro; and each provides- to borrow a thought of T. S.
Eliot - a further intensity into a deeper visual communionwith nature.
Let me assureyou that I am not claiming that this enlargement and
intensity of the visual is what painting is all about or that they are the
only raisons d'etre of painting. All I want to insist on is that if we re-
quire an answer to our question, What are the uses of the arts in per-sonal life? then the two mentioned are among the uses, gifts, or effects
of art that are actual, hence possible and, at least to me, ought to be
shared by all, even if need be, against the better judgments of the
indifferent and philistine. These two uses also tie in with the second
7/30/2019 weitz art who needs it.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/weitz-art-who-needs-itpdf 8/10
ART:WHO NEEDS T? 25
assignment regarding professionalpractice. For if you believe as I do
that among the deprived are, in addition to the underdeveloped and
underprivileged,what I call the underperceivers,then those of us who
are teachers of the arts have deep obligations to work out the requisitesfor an education into the uses of the arts that will accommodate and
pay homage to the visual as well as to the traditionally accepted eco-
nomic, moral, and intellectual capacities of our fellow beings.
Literature, too, has for its primary uses the enlargement of the
imaginative possibilitiesfor experience and the intensificationof presentexperience. Of course these are not the point of literature or why it
should be. Like any art, literature is autonomous; it needs no reason
other than itself to exist. Consequently,no theoryof its uses or effects-
whether factual or normative- can ignore this autonomy without vio-
lating the nature of literaryart. This is not the appropriate occasion to
probe the nature of literature or even to call into question whether it
has a nature. I take it that all of us know what it is and shall concen-
trate on what it can do for us if we let it. And what it can do is, as I
suggest, to present an enormous range of verbal, emotional, and idea-tional possibilities for future experiences as well as a deeper intensityinto our present experiences. Consider any novel, poem, drama you
wish, whether you like it or not, if it is any good, and there are plentythat are, each of these, in the dramatic, human world it invents and in
the verbal materials out of which it is created, contains world picturesor themes that remain just that or sometimes suggest theses about the
way the world is. The different, even opposing, world pictures- quite
independently of their truth or falsity or of their being taken by the
reader to be true or false to reality-open up new possibilities forthought and action. Who can read Oedipus Rex or Candide or Four
Quartets or Anna Karenina or A la recherche du temps perdu without
responding to the vast arrayof actualized world views and experiences
presented in these masterpieces as imaginative possibilities for our
world and as intensive probings of our own paltry range of actual
experiences? We may not glean hard truths from these works but we
do learn about how the world could be and very well may be for all
we know. This is not to imply that no literaryworkscontain true claims
since it is obvious that many do; and these truths, though presented
differently from the arguments of pure philosophy, often vie with
philosophical truths. Indeed, some works of literature, for example,Greek tragedy, supersedephilosophyto proclaim truths about man that
the philosophers wrongly rejected. It is a fact, I think, that there is
7/30/2019 weitz art who needs it.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/weitz-art-who-needs-itpdf 9/10
26 MORRISWEITZ
something irretrievably tragic about human experience, however vari-
ously interpretable this fact is. Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripidessaw this. But neither Plato nor Aristotle accepted it, arguing in effect
that the dialectic of reason could overcome the tragic. The philosophers-not the artists- were wrong; so here we have a clear case of
artistic knowledge superior to philosophical. I should not want to
argue from this example, however, that even literature which contains
truths, has a fundamental cognitive use. Its cognitive contributions,
when present, are a use although surely not central. We do not go toSophocles for a truth about men as we might to Plato or Aristotle; we
turn to him for his art in which his revelations of truth are but one
integral constituent, ultimately justifiable on aesthetic rather than
philosophical grounds.Music is like painting at least in its uses to personal life: it enlarges
our sensory experiences as it intensifies them. But it is unlike painting
and, of course, literature in that it does not offer possibilities for new
auditory experiences in ordinary life nor does it intensify the noises
and sounds we hear. Music may relate to noise and ordinarysounds, itmay even exploit them. But fundamentally it creates its own world
of pure sound. It is by doing this that music enlarges our limited audi-
tory experiences; it adds to them and with an expressive, formal
intensity of its own. Mozart, for example, does not make us hear differ-
ently as Cezanne makes us see differently. Mozart makes us hear some-
thing different. It is in this way that his music intensifiesas it enlarges,
by offering us an actuality of organized sound far beyond anything we
can listen to in ordinarylife.
The uses of music rest on the autonomy of that art. Enlargementand intensity belong to it. We share in these but our participation does
not carry over into ordinary life. The great use we can make of music,
consequently, is not to use it to effect anything in our personal lives
but to bring ourselves to listen to it for its own sake- as an indepen-dent world of sound, supremelyvaluable in itself. Now, if this is true
or, since we must stick to the normative mode, if this is how we oughtto respond to music, why should we not come to respond to all the arts
in the same way: as autonomous, goods in themselves, not as extrinsi-
cally valuable because of what they do for us or to us? If we adopt thisoverall approach to the arts, the importance of the enlargement and
intensity I have been talking about would depend on the arts, not on
the uses we make of them, which are only incidental to proper responseto art. Art, then, on such a view, may retain its uses in personal life
7/30/2019 weitz art who needs it.pdf
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/weitz-art-who-needs-itpdf 10/10
ART:WHONEEDS T? 27
but the greatest use we can make of it is to come to see it as autono-
mous: as art for the sake of itself. I am well aware of the conclusion
that must be drawn from such a position- that art, properlyattended
to, is useless. I accept the conclusion. At least it joins art with mathe-
matics, physics, and philosophy, those other absolutely useless subjects,without which for some- alas, too few - life would be more intoler-
able than it is.
top related