![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
John Dewey, Art as Experience, 1-11
Aug. 21st, 2024 01:39 amps.: ngl this isn't revised cause it's almost 3am and I more wanted to ramble about something that I read than actually create a super duper solid well-written text. So beware of (even more) typos
Today after work I decided to get started on John Dewey's Art as Experience once again, as I've decided to embrace the messy relationship I have with reading, as incentivized by a youtube video essay, because of course. Essentially, I want to learn to accept the frustration and distraction of reading as something normal, which it is, instead of trying to fight it incessantly and in vain. Art as Experience felt like a good alleyway back into reading because it is such a well written text. I remember being mesmerized the first time I tried getting through it by how much it felt like I was reading a novel even though the book is a philosophical text. Dewey does a great job not only conveying his ideas clearly but also their beauty, at least for what I've read to so far and been told by others interested in his work.
This is essentially an attempt at summarizing what I managed to read today, as well as my thoughts about it. So I can better process what I read. I do plan on doing one of these each time I read, but idk, let's see.
Dewey's objective in this book is very much to develop his own philosophy of aesthetics, centered on the idea that the study of art should not start at the analysis of artwork as a concept or object. Instead, he seeks to analyze the relationship between the experience of creating/appreciating art as indistinguishable from other aesthetic experiences. He presents: Adjusting the wood inside a campfire, train-watching as one waits at the station, tending to house plants, and many others as examples of aesthetic experiences similar to the arts, and defends that they should exist in a similar context in the day-to-day.
The author heavily criticizes the culture he saw at the time, and which one could say still exists today, of separating art from the people, placing it in a (literal) pedestal which sits in a context separate from routine. Museums and galleries serve as representatives of this culture, which Dewey uses as examples for its relationship to imperialism and nationalism. Through such institutions art exists as a vehicle for building national pride and identity. Alongside artifacts stolen from colonized nations, artworks inside building such as the Louvre serve as symbols of a nation's superiority and wealth. The same applies to the usual rich art collector. For Dewey this steals away the work's role as part of the public's day-to-day. It also impacts one's perception of widely available art. If true/good art only exists in the context of museums and galleries, then the common routine aesthetic experiences, even those such as music or film, which one could argue are categorically art, are deprived of such status. They become lesser, which for Dewey, is a mistake.
Essentially, so far, the book seems to defend artwork as one of many avenues towards aesthetic enjoyment, which shouldn't be conceptually separated from the others. Its view of art seems entirely dependent on a living beings interaction with it, on its experience. An object cannot be considered art without it, whereas an experience can be considered art, even if not accompanied by the object, as long as it brings aesthetic enjoyment. Not exactly "art is all that creates aesthetic enjoyment", more so "The distinction between art and other sources of aesthetic enjoyment does not matter, it causes more harm than good".
---
This view of art does please me, personally. I think it works well with art's subjectivity. I cannot accept the idea that there is an objective definition of art, as it simply does not make sense to me. The "definition" presented by Dewey seems to take this impossibility of categorization into account, art is seen as... well... an experience. One which depends not just on the art object, but also on the audience, artist, and the context that surrounds their interactions to exists. One could also describe it as a feeling.
I also find Dewey's direct rejection of the idea of "Art for art's sake" quite appealing. I remember having a conversation related to this with some friends some time ago. I couldn't understand the view of art as something that can exist for its own sake, or for the sake of nothing at all, because even if subconscious, there seems to always be a kind of objective, some need to be met, not just in artistic creation/analysis, but in all living-being's action. This perception was promptly rejected by the rest of the group, which I still don't understand (though I'm willing to). Art as Experience seems to come at this from a similar angle. Prescribing the artistic experience as intrinsic to the concept of art shows a rejection of the idea that the art object can exist for nothing/itself. Art exists for the sake of its experience, we create art for the sake of experiencing its creation, and we interact with art for the sake of experiencing that interaction. In a sense it is a view that could be described as "art for art's sake", but it differs from the meaning of this phrase by seeing art not as the artistic object, but as the artistic experience.
I've read very little of the book so far, but I'm excited to get to the rest. It isn't a complicated read, since it seeks to come back to the subject's most basic ideas which connect it to the common experience of living. It also seems to be a text focused on creating a healthy relationship to art as a concept instead of trying to arrive at an absolute truth about it. That's probably what I appreciate the most about it. I'm excited to keep reading.
Today after work I decided to get started on John Dewey's Art as Experience once again, as I've decided to embrace the messy relationship I have with reading, as incentivized by a youtube video essay, because of course. Essentially, I want to learn to accept the frustration and distraction of reading as something normal, which it is, instead of trying to fight it incessantly and in vain. Art as Experience felt like a good alleyway back into reading because it is such a well written text. I remember being mesmerized the first time I tried getting through it by how much it felt like I was reading a novel even though the book is a philosophical text. Dewey does a great job not only conveying his ideas clearly but also their beauty, at least for what I've read to so far and been told by others interested in his work.
This is essentially an attempt at summarizing what I managed to read today, as well as my thoughts about it. So I can better process what I read. I do plan on doing one of these each time I read, but idk, let's see.
Dewey's objective in this book is very much to develop his own philosophy of aesthetics, centered on the idea that the study of art should not start at the analysis of artwork as a concept or object. Instead, he seeks to analyze the relationship between the experience of creating/appreciating art as indistinguishable from other aesthetic experiences. He presents: Adjusting the wood inside a campfire, train-watching as one waits at the station, tending to house plants, and many others as examples of aesthetic experiences similar to the arts, and defends that they should exist in a similar context in the day-to-day.
The author heavily criticizes the culture he saw at the time, and which one could say still exists today, of separating art from the people, placing it in a (literal) pedestal which sits in a context separate from routine. Museums and galleries serve as representatives of this culture, which Dewey uses as examples for its relationship to imperialism and nationalism. Through such institutions art exists as a vehicle for building national pride and identity. Alongside artifacts stolen from colonized nations, artworks inside building such as the Louvre serve as symbols of a nation's superiority and wealth. The same applies to the usual rich art collector. For Dewey this steals away the work's role as part of the public's day-to-day. It also impacts one's perception of widely available art. If true/good art only exists in the context of museums and galleries, then the common routine aesthetic experiences, even those such as music or film, which one could argue are categorically art, are deprived of such status. They become lesser, which for Dewey, is a mistake.
Essentially, so far, the book seems to defend artwork as one of many avenues towards aesthetic enjoyment, which shouldn't be conceptually separated from the others. Its view of art seems entirely dependent on a living beings interaction with it, on its experience. An object cannot be considered art without it, whereas an experience can be considered art, even if not accompanied by the object, as long as it brings aesthetic enjoyment. Not exactly "art is all that creates aesthetic enjoyment", more so "The distinction between art and other sources of aesthetic enjoyment does not matter, it causes more harm than good".
---
This view of art does please me, personally. I think it works well with art's subjectivity. I cannot accept the idea that there is an objective definition of art, as it simply does not make sense to me. The "definition" presented by Dewey seems to take this impossibility of categorization into account, art is seen as... well... an experience. One which depends not just on the art object, but also on the audience, artist, and the context that surrounds their interactions to exists. One could also describe it as a feeling.
I also find Dewey's direct rejection of the idea of "Art for art's sake" quite appealing. I remember having a conversation related to this with some friends some time ago. I couldn't understand the view of art as something that can exist for its own sake, or for the sake of nothing at all, because even if subconscious, there seems to always be a kind of objective, some need to be met, not just in artistic creation/analysis, but in all living-being's action. This perception was promptly rejected by the rest of the group, which I still don't understand (though I'm willing to). Art as Experience seems to come at this from a similar angle. Prescribing the artistic experience as intrinsic to the concept of art shows a rejection of the idea that the art object can exist for nothing/itself. Art exists for the sake of its experience, we create art for the sake of experiencing its creation, and we interact with art for the sake of experiencing that interaction. In a sense it is a view that could be described as "art for art's sake", but it differs from the meaning of this phrase by seeing art not as the artistic object, but as the artistic experience.
I've read very little of the book so far, but I'm excited to get to the rest. It isn't a complicated read, since it seeks to come back to the subject's most basic ideas which connect it to the common experience of living. It also seems to be a text focused on creating a healthy relationship to art as a concept instead of trying to arrive at an absolute truth about it. That's probably what I appreciate the most about it. I'm excited to keep reading.
