John Dewey, Art as Experience, 11-19
Dec. 3rd, 2024 05:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xx_gothaggot_xxSooo, it's been a while. It is rather embarrassing to admit I came back to this book months later only to read 9 pages out of it and nothing else, but that's what we have for today. This was the amount of reading it took for me to reach the end of the first chapter and I've been experimenting with new ways of taking notes, so it wasn't a total loss, no. Though I do hope the next time around I can be faster. 9 pages in 1 hour and a half isn't ideal.
Regardless, let's get to my thoughts on the book itself.
Now that I finished it, the title of the first chapter "The Live Creature" has come into perspective. The idea of it was first defending its approach to analyzing the subject (as denoted in my first entry on the book), and then kick-starting its analysis, which is what we'll be getting into today. From his defense of the aesthetic as experience, Dewey proceeds to explore this more broad concept and how it leads back into art.
For Dewey the experience of all living things is characterized by our relationship to whatever environment surrounds us. "Life itself consists of phases in which the organism falls out of step with the march of surrounding things and then recovers unison with it." He writes. It's a dialectic relationship, if you will, marked by this cyclical motion of not having, wanting, acquiring, enjoying, not having, wanting, acquiring, enjoying, not having, wanting, acquiring, enjoying. Through each iteration of this cycle the subject grows into a different being, that is more in tune with its surroundings than before, but still faces the conflict of falling out of sink with it.
This is important, because the book defends that aesthetic experience is akin to catharsis. Its the feeling of transitioning from a moment of tension into a moment of resolution, when the past stops being a source of shame, but instead a source of knowledge, whereas the future stops being something to be feared, but a promise of opportunities brought forth by the now. He refers to this as "being alive" as opposed to our usual "subsisting".
It's unclear to me whether Dewey is trying to argue that Art is that which seeks to generate this experience, but he definitely defends that it should be. For him, the function of Art is to bring attention to experience in this way, generate the catharsis of resolving tension.
---
I am conflicted on how to feel about this. I see the beauty in what Dewey is defending, I even see a semblance of truth in it. How many times have I felt like I was in a movie while hanging out with my friends and loved ones? How many times have I yearned to live as my favorite characters and poetic personas do? The feeling of aesthetic enjoyment does seem to blend in with the feeling of being truly alive, not just for me, but for many others, so the relation doesn't seem unjustified. It does seem fragile, though. Especially when we start defending Art as something that serves specifically to generate this moment. I do question not only if it's true, but also, and mainly, whether that perception is useful.
Mainly because I'm reluctant to accept Art as something with a specific purpose. I do believe an aim is always present, consciously or not. However, asserting one specific goal to all art, seems like overreaching. I also question if Dewey would say art that seeks to create tension without ever resolving it is categorically bad (many a horror story, or graffiti for example, both of which I consider to be really cool art-forms), or if he would argue that the resolution occurs outside of the interaction with the work itself, thus making this category valid.
All and all, I'm really curious to keep reading. I might even continue later today, who knows.
Regardless, let's get to my thoughts on the book itself.
Now that I finished it, the title of the first chapter "The Live Creature" has come into perspective. The idea of it was first defending its approach to analyzing the subject (as denoted in my first entry on the book), and then kick-starting its analysis, which is what we'll be getting into today. From his defense of the aesthetic as experience, Dewey proceeds to explore this more broad concept and how it leads back into art.
For Dewey the experience of all living things is characterized by our relationship to whatever environment surrounds us. "Life itself consists of phases in which the organism falls out of step with the march of surrounding things and then recovers unison with it." He writes. It's a dialectic relationship, if you will, marked by this cyclical motion of not having, wanting, acquiring, enjoying, not having, wanting, acquiring, enjoying, not having, wanting, acquiring, enjoying. Through each iteration of this cycle the subject grows into a different being, that is more in tune with its surroundings than before, but still faces the conflict of falling out of sink with it.
This is important, because the book defends that aesthetic experience is akin to catharsis. Its the feeling of transitioning from a moment of tension into a moment of resolution, when the past stops being a source of shame, but instead a source of knowledge, whereas the future stops being something to be feared, but a promise of opportunities brought forth by the now. He refers to this as "being alive" as opposed to our usual "subsisting".
It's unclear to me whether Dewey is trying to argue that Art is that which seeks to generate this experience, but he definitely defends that it should be. For him, the function of Art is to bring attention to experience in this way, generate the catharsis of resolving tension.
---
I am conflicted on how to feel about this. I see the beauty in what Dewey is defending, I even see a semblance of truth in it. How many times have I felt like I was in a movie while hanging out with my friends and loved ones? How many times have I yearned to live as my favorite characters and poetic personas do? The feeling of aesthetic enjoyment does seem to blend in with the feeling of being truly alive, not just for me, but for many others, so the relation doesn't seem unjustified. It does seem fragile, though. Especially when we start defending Art as something that serves specifically to generate this moment. I do question not only if it's true, but also, and mainly, whether that perception is useful.
Mainly because I'm reluctant to accept Art as something with a specific purpose. I do believe an aim is always present, consciously or not. However, asserting one specific goal to all art, seems like overreaching. I also question if Dewey would say art that seeks to create tension without ever resolving it is categorically bad (many a horror story, or graffiti for example, both of which I consider to be really cool art-forms), or if he would argue that the resolution occurs outside of the interaction with the work itself, thus making this category valid.
All and all, I'm really curious to keep reading. I might even continue later today, who knows.
