Download
1 / 14
140 likes | 246 Views
Philosophy and the Arts: Lectures 14 and 16. “The Work of Art” and “Aesthetic Surface”. Pepper and Prall. In this lecture, I discuss two of my favorite philosophers: Stephen C. Pepper (1891-1972), and D. W. Prall (1886-1940). During the 1920’s both taught at the U. of California.
E N D
Philosophy and the Arts:Lectures 14 and 16 “The Work of Art” and “Aesthetic Surface”
Pepper and Prall • In this lecture, I discuss two of my favorite philosophers: Stephen C. Pepper (1891-1972), and D. W. Prall (1886-1940). During the 1920’s both taught at the U. of California.
Together at Cal… • It would be a worthwhile exercise to go to the library, and look at old files of the University of California Publications in Philosophy---some really good stuff there! • Both Pepper and Prall were what might be called “renaissance men,” that is, they did a bit of everything. Both men did major work on general value theory. Prall had published arguments with Dewey and Russell. • Pepper did work on metaphysics, ethics, and the arts—at one time he was head of both the Philosophy and Art departments at the University of California!!
More Pepper, please… • There is too much here to discuss in one lecture, so let me cover just one topic related to each man. For Pepper, what do we mean when we refer to a work of art? Note that he is not trying here to define ‘art.’ • He assumed we know that certain things are works of art, while others are not. Thus novels and plays are art works, while Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations--for all its merits--is not.
A Work of Art? • Pepper says when we refer to this, or any, work of art, we are referring to three different things: • First, there is what he called the “Control object,” that bit of canvas with paint on it, on display in a museum in Austria. • Second, there is the object of immediate perception, the art work as seen, as you now see this copy. • Third, there is the “object of criticism,” a sort of ideal collection of all of our fund of relevant experiences of this painting.
Funding and Fusion… • Suppose, as Pepper was (and I was not), you are taken to Europe as a small child, and you see this painting. You return as an Art History major in college, and later, in your middle years. • Finally, you make one last tour after retirement. When you see the painting that second (third…) time, you bring a fund of experiences, including (of course), seeing the work before. • Each time, your experience is funded, and fused into the present experience…
Why are re-runs so dull, and why do we consider the Bible a divine book? • If you think about it, Pepper helps us understand how we evaluate art works. Often, when we switch on the TV, perhaps to a episode of CSI, we say, “I’ve seen that,” and turn to something else…but would we push away a Bible, saying “I’ve read that.” (insane). • If I teach this Spring, my Intro or Ethics students will read part of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics-- I’ve taught that every year for almost 50 years, but I always catch myself saying “I hadn’t noticed that before…” • And people over in the Religion dept. can spend their whole lives studying the Bible; possibly the best argument we could give for thinking it a divine work is that it seems inexhaustible!!
Do you prefer the likeness by Raphael? That’s his Aristotle on the right. He seems to making an important philosophical point. But I digress… Prefer Raphael??
Hopper’s Nighthawks?? • Prall’s work had many insights, and he had died before Edward Hopper did this picture. {Oh, I am assuming the people in the picture eat something with their coffee, but maybe not..} • But consider this: suppose the college requires you to have taken 3 art courses before graduation, and you go over to have your transcript checked out----they find no art courses. They ask ”Did you take Literature, Painting, Music…?” “No,” you reply, “I took Home Ec.; my Grandma always said cooking was an art.”
Why isn’t cooking an art form?? • I know that move won’t work. Why not? • Not really as trivial as it sounds. Since the Middle Ages (at least), it has been recognized that art is somehow related to the senses. • Prall saw art as related to the “surface” qualities of things, how they look, how they sound… But if we have art forms based on the senses of sight and hearing, why not arts based on the senses of smell or touch?? • In the past, some thinkers have dismissed these senses as somehow lower, or carnal. Prall claims the difference is (or that the problem is..) that these senses are not subject to order. That is, your Grandmother might have a keen sense of what goes with what at dinner---but she cannot depend on anything like the color spectrum or the musical scale.
SO… • I do not mean to say that Pepper and Prall should be ranked with Plato and Aristotle, or even Kant and Hume. • But I knew and corresponded with Pepper, and regret that I came along too late to know Prall. • I’ve read the works of both men on Value Theory (spent a semester working through Pepper’s big book on the Sources Of Value). • Finally, I’ve read the books of both men on Aesthetics, and find very precious little to compare with them on the market today. • These two guys, and their works, should not be forgotten.
