Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • Roger Scruton - The Aesthetic Understanding

    Enviado por

    markacohen12121
    1K visualizações131 páginas
    Aesthetics

    Direitos autorais

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formatos disponíveis

    PDF ou leia online no Scribd

    Você considera este documento útil?

    Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

    Denunciar este documento
    Aesthetics

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    1K visualizações131 páginas

    Roger Scruton - The Aesthetic Understanding

    Enviado por

    markacohen12121
    Aesthetics

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato PDF ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    de 131
    By the same author Artand Imagination ‘oadon, 1978; New Yor, 1979) The Aesthetics of Architecure ‘ndon, 197%; Princeton, 1980) ‘The Meaning of Consercatism ‘london and New York, 1980) From Descartes 9 Wingenstin ‘Loadon and Bosto, 1981) Fornight’s Anger (a novel) (Manchester, 1981) The Politics of Cultre (Manchester, 1981) Kant (Pas Masters, Oxford, 1982) A Dictionary of Political Thought (London, 1983). ROGER SCRUTON, The Aesthetic Understanding says inthe Philosophy ‘of Art and Culture (CARCANET PRESS, MANCHESTER, Fin published in Grea Britain i 1983 by ‘Carcaet New Pew Lid 208-212 Com Bschange Buldings ‘Manchester M4 3BQ ISBN 0 48635 487 2 Copyright © Roger Scrton 1983 “All ighs seed Bris Library Cataloguing i Publication Data Scruton, Roget The sesthetic understanding. Aesthetics Lite HV.8S BESS ISBN 0:85635-487-2 “The Publisher acknowledges the nancial asistance of the [Ars Council of Great Britain “Typeset by Annee, Weston-super-Mare, Avon Printed in England by Short Run Pres Ld, Exeter Contents Preface Aesthetics and Criticism 1 Recent Aesthetics in England and America 2 Public Text and Common Reader The Meaning of Music 4 Absolute Music 5 Programme Music 6 The Nature of Musical Expression 7 Representation in Music 8 Understanding Music ‘The Eye of the Camera 9 Photography and Representation 10 Fantasy, Imagination and the Screen ‘The Aesthetic Understanding 11 Emotion and Culture 12 Laughter 1B Art History and Aesthetic Judgement 14 The Architecture of Leninism 15 Aesthetic Education and Design 16 Beckett and the Cartesian Soul Acknowledgements Notes Index of Names 4 37 41 9 62 n 102 a7 138 133 166, 179 139 2 243 245 285 Preface ‘Theseesays were writen over esod of seven year, and evera varity of subject im pore and applied awhets, reflecting, both my own eters, and ao a wider interest among Aaglo-Saxoa philosophers in| the problems posed by the experience of art. For the most part they cmploy forms of argument and intelectual devices cued from the Imetods of analytical philosophy. Tt is pow fay evident chat these ‘methods areas appicabic in aesthetics sin ether ares ofplsopbial nguley. that were not so, then I believe that analytical philosophy ‘woul have fed 0 establish ise a a coherent intelectual discipline For aesthetics isa central ates of philosophy, a central a metaphysis, sand basi to our understanding ofthe human condition. But Ae al Works of analysis, the following essays dono presuppose the rath of tha ‘rveralation.T hope only tha they give some grounds for. As ‘xplorations and report, they must speak for themes have divided the cllection int four scons. The ist conains bret saumnd of todern analytical weathets, which T hope may serve #8 ‘struction to some ofthe assumptions made in subsequent chaptersit ts contains an essay reflecting Curent problems in erry theory “The second sections devoted tthe problents of musical aesthetics, and iempes to lve both « summary of the main questions, and abo a Shetch of «theory which might answer some of them. The tid section ‘contin wo evap on photOBraphY and the cinema the first concerned wh the concep of representation, the second with cern SSbs i the Pisophy of mind to which Tao return in subsequent chapters The Final scons the mst diverse, containing various exsys devoted tothe ‘esthetic understanding’. Tis my hope that these esays hang together ‘slicenty well justly pubeation sna single section. From is own ‘speci eld of study exch chapter approaches the min problems, a see them, of sextet what i aesthetic experience, and what i is Imporance for human conduct? Thre af te rays — chapter 10,13 and Md — appear here for the Sit time. Te remainder repradoce or adapt materia already plished London, December 1982 ROGER SCRUTON 1 Recent Aesthetics in England and America [Aesthetics owes mor than its name to Grek philosophy. Nevertheless it ‘sa peculaely modern discipline Ts se and falas we presently perceive ‘hem) have been contemporaneous with the rea allot Romantic, Now that at looks back io the uphervals which created the ‘modern ooriosness, philosophy stands ati sbouler,dacouring on their ‘common los oft, To understand the sate of contemporary sesthets, tw mut therefore reflect on ts roan origin We thea fe pou ‘ytbess of British empiricism and Lelbnzia idealism, achieving ‘Sstematc statement in Kaas Cig of Jdpement It was Kant who {ve form and stats to aesthetics. An it was Hegel who endowed with ‘Sate. Ta the light af those fats, we should not be supe atthe ‘iicaties which anlytcal aesthetics has exprizncedinatempting to mak Sense of inberited subject-matter. Kant put forward 4 threfold division of rationality: aesthetic judgement was distinguished from morliy (practical reason) and fom ‘cence (endertanding) o be united with them only through «genera Uheory of gency the det of which Kant di nt disclose. Hege fered to reveal the details of this as of everything. He fund that it was not sible wo dscssaestetis without advancing theory ofa. Kant who ad prefered el ower o painted omer, thereby sled radial ‘emnsformation Both philosophers were convinced, however, that testeve jadgement tno arbitrary addenda to human apace, Dut a onsequence of rationality, « bridge Between the sensuous and the Intellect and an odipensble means of acs tothe world af as, “Anyone interested ina subject wil be ataced by the theories which rake it scem inporant. Until the advent of analytical philosophy, ‘therefore, those with interest in astctis were snvaraly tempted by ‘Meals, Asan ilustation ts wel o consider the lst systematic work ‘of English sewthetis to appear before the advent of inguticanalis RG. Colinas Principles of re was published in 1938, and, despite is infigence upon art and critic, was soon to be regarded as ‘acronis. Collingwood presented ina vel iiom the distinctions 4 Ashes and Critic through which idealist aesthetics ha crete its subject. He dtinguithed imaginuive understanding from subjective aseciston, artic insight from scenic ele, expression from representation, seeing an end from seeing as « means. Following Croce (Eetisa,190) he advocated ‘version of expresionis according to which ats the expression ofthe inne ie “Expresin’ which splays the particular it abet) contrasted wth description (which, n employing concepts must abstract {rom the pariculrty of what esribes) Tes integral oth theory tat we most ee art as end and not as eans: we mst set n Kans words, pat fom interes. True artis therefore to be distinguished fro cat, ‘fom magic, rom evocation, and even from sepresentation. This the final resive of the dealt doctrine, that at doesnt advze, describe ot morale, but gv immediate and therefore enroous, embodiment tits “ie ‘Ncorollary of most idealist theories of art that the distinction between “Torm’ and content is thrown in dob. Kisin the nature of «work of a to give expression to the uniqueness of it subjetmater, At the sane time, the work of art — beng nether a detrption, or a technique — ‘must ako exemplify the uniqueness which expresses, Al featur of« ‘work of art are bound up with its ‘particularity and any change in the form brings with ta coresponding change subject-matter. fformand coe alas chang optic tc problema ate te “Army philsophers are quick to observe a prado and it was not long befor expressionism began osufer rom theresa. Tosay hata vorkof artexpresies something io imply the exstenceofarltion and tthe to ters that ae joined by. But are thee rw things ere the work of ac and is content? Andis there areal reltion between ther? To ‘sera relation between andi t suggest that we ca det «ad {independently But that r what seam denis, I the only answer tothe {uestion "What does Beethoven's {ith symphony expres?” Is "The ootent of Beethoven's fifth symphony’, thea the ter express can 20| longer be taken o refer wa genuine elation. Moreover the theory that we ‘understand «work of art by srsping what is ‘expesed' by i becomes iy empey- At such point, alts las on the doctrine of internal ‘elaons, but was an early achievement of contemporary British ‘hilospty to show that doctrine tobe uninteliible' Inthe ight of such difficulties i ena surprising to find thatthe ist cles of analytical aesthetics (gathered together as Attics and Language (1954) edited by W. Elton and Collected Papers on Aesthetic (965) edited by C- Barreu) show a funy consent howtlity towards ‘Meats thought. "Their tone notentrely negative. Under the uence of Recnt Aesthaiesin England and America modern logic the authors atk qvesions which are some extent 2eW 19 {he philosophy of art — questions about the identity and ontlogcl stats fof the work of af, apd about the structure of rial argument. ‘Neverthes it is fir to ay that these carly esas subtract fom the ‘subject fa ore thin they ada toe Analytical posophy lays great ‘emphasis upon lpi competence and i at to be unadventurous in ‘Catching for the comprehensive sundpeia rom which aesthetics can be Surveyed. This fang ae persisted inthe atles publi in the (80 leading journals — the Brisk oural of Asta and the American ‘Four of deste and Art Crinim —~ which bave been a hee best Tien devoted t0 detaied analysis of critical argument, and not when ‘itempting to eploe the philosophical foundations ofthe subject. Teisa popular view tht aalyal philosophy is nothing but a devious repetition af ld empiricist readies, expesive ofan unnatural sation from cultural life ane an thstorcal view of man. Unik ideals. it seems to occupy lf exclave with quenons of meaning conceding ‘Since the soe nithorty determine bow things ae: How, the, isi 19 ‘roid its own substantive conelsions? By contrast, has seemed that ther ways of thought — bterary criticism, for example or speculiive ‘Phenomenology — provide a perspective onthe world which render it Iotligibie i a way that scence does not. They sem to genente an Understanding ofthat goes beyond the analss festa terminology "In respons to thse sentiments, aesthetic hastened to move into contrasting dictions — i the dretion fee, and inthe diection ‘fino speculative schools of plloophial enquiry. Isl consider cach ‘fthese movement in ar To foctsng his tenon on cris, pilosoper might tke one of| two stinaes. Theresa obscure realm where ericsm and philosophy ‘Soin, the realm, sone might pu i of applied aesthetics, where the onsets of philosophy are used stretch and embelish the speclative nlivions of erscl argument. Since Iam not rare about the nate oF ‘he vale of such an enterprise, I shalsimply refer othe most important ‘alti pooper wh has ngage in. This Stanley Cael wese ‘ssays urs Alaan Wha we Say? ad eda 1976) contain extended Sacusiom of music and iterate. [may wel be re tha these esas {si something considerable to the understanding of at Cavell sao oteworthy for an analysis of the cinema, The Word Viewed (1974, triton sm sye tha conceals am his reader a least the mature and Innortance of the ies which ici designed 0 contey. clearer, and moe orthodox, way of taking inspiration from cits, is to engage inthe philosophical anal of cial das. Asan example ‘hall oonider Joa Casey's The Langnag of Cicam (1986), which sts 6 Aches and Criticism ‘out to examine ceria philosophical preconceptions embod in the procedures of Anglo-Americen critica Casey shows particular interest In FR. Leavis who forall is rejection of univer premises, repeesests ina striking way the dep longing ofthe English mind, oppressed by ts ‘own compulsion towards empircit scepecam, for the intlectal Tamework of icanm. ‘This framework comes to Leavis not from philosophy, but from the terry tradition of which Coleidge and Arnold fe the mest dininguished representatives. ‘Leavis had shown, ina nom famous sna of Thomas Hardy's poem ‘ater «Journey? that sincerity intraarea inply a mar teuthtelng Echoing thought of Croce’ Er, . 60), be arged th Sincerity is propery of the whole manner in whisna poet's feling finds expression, being inseparable fom a detaledatention tothe oer work! land a concrete fealization of the objets there presented. (Here the “Heals doctrine, that expression in artis connected with the ‘particular’ ‘the concrete and so iereplaceale by the abstractions o any discursive scence). Sincerity therefore necesitates though incompatible with Seatimencality, and reflects a mode of understanding ofthe world which while not of ‘centifc’ (or theoretical) hind, i nevertheless more imporant wa man than ay understanding tate scenic Walang might ‘Weiter ke Casey argue tat the connections ere — between sincerity, tealty, thought and emotional quality — are not merely connections of fact. Tt doesnot just so happen that the sincere expression of emotion cincides with an attention to and eaizton of attendant circumstances, for that Sentimental emotion one that outrens the contol of any justlging thought Leavis conlaion are, true, necessarily tor and ‘eflet an insight into the cope of sincerity and sentimentality. Ths it Seemed that, propel interpreted, cricam would he an extension of oncepual analysis, covering thos important bat clive aren of the human mind which ar makes pecaary wid to ‘Whatever the merits of such an approach, it cannot inthe nature of | things lead us toa general aesthets- On the contrary, eden efor ‘hibsophy through by-pasing the questions of aesthetics altogether and ‘ecing in ccs only instances of more general philosophical concerns Te discusses problem reiting t0 emotion, culture, and practical Knowledge. But — while these may obai vv exemplifation in the ‘itksm af art — they are ot problems ef aesthetics. Ofcourse tit ‘accident hat terry cio forces it practitioner ocoaon, a tht ‘sy, fundamental question inthe pilnopy of mind. Nevertheless we eed pilsophial account of at that wil explain why that is 30 “Moreover, probimsremain which scm tobe pela othe traditional Recent Aesthetics in England and America 7 object of aesthetics and which are not and perhaps cannot be, solved by ‘eng Inerary eric in philosophical tems. Tes fom a deste to Solve such problems that writers diillsioned with the misuse of Tnguiste analysis rrme to othe les of philosophical flection. Tas een sid and with considerable truth, that comtemporary anltial Piosphy bas deprived pllosophy of ir stator ar 8 Bomaniy. An Informed understanding of society and culture, an aoguainance with at ‘nd trator, a consciousness of history and instttons ~ al hese xem ‘ bive place in the staesunderaken in English and. American Philwophy departments. And this velctnce to engage in the activity trhich Mathew Arnold (noting i overwhelming importance for the ‘German min) cae ‘item i righty tobe condemped a philistine By contest, nether phenomenology or Maras hs, i ou century, incunred tha charge. Both have alge appetite for cure, and both promise o incorporate rt ect and central ino thei conceptions of | losphical method. Major schools of aesthetics on the Continent — Russian formalism, Parisian semilogy, the Rezepuionlathch which as recently emerged in Germany — all chim to be indebted either 10 “Marais orto phenomenslogy. Methods which seem to add so many revalle 101 subject that therwie without them, naturally arouse ‘iro eset me hat infact, the results proclaimed by many of these continental school ae, lke the methods which create them, itosory’ The atempe to transate them into Engh as led 0 reat prolieraton of argon, anda massive ef of scholastic disputation But Iris veryhard wo extract theory ofastetis from the rest. Nevertheless the clam sail frequently made that Maris, atleast, provides an indispensable clue to art, and to the mystery posed by modern man's ttuimate relation to tis dificult o ive any genera aessment of that clam. Bu there are, 1 betve, ground for scrpicm. Consider the Marais theory of history, ‘nhac dives ise from superstoctare, hoping thereby to achieve ‘nti view of both, Soch a theory canes arto se superstructure, ‘rpaining its character in terms ofthe economic condition under which t I Sonoeved, Eve if tac uncertain what sucha theory ca contribute ‘oourundertanding of art Iris one hing oauigncauses oa work oft, ‘ther thing to understand its cooteat or value. I this kind of explanation fan generate ceitciem, then we sal wat to Roow why: hence we shall feed theory of what it to understand and appreciate ar. Which means that we shall ned an independent aesthetic, relying on precisely those ‘hlosophieal elections tht te theory of history sought fo eae. The theory can therefore neither solve the problems aor pre-mptte solions| ‘of philosophical aesthetics. Ofeourse there have been more subtle models 8 Aches and Coico of historical determinism, conceived within the broad spirit of Marsan ‘atria. Buti no sublty that required in onder to make the theory of history eetan to aesthetics the question oft elevance ca be

    Você também pode gostar