“Through [art] he communicates to others the idea he has grasped;… the work of art is merely a means of facilitating that knowledge in which this pleasure exists.” (Page 195) The genius, or rather a person with greater understanding of the nature of things, uses art as a means of conveying his or her understanding of the subject. Schopenhauer also goes on to say at the end of section 37 (page 194-195) that art can be used not only as a medium for inspiration by nature or by life, but also by the sake of doing the art and that it is equally outwardly expressive of his or her knowledge of the subject.
While Schopenhauer’s bit about concept and the Idea (on page 234) is superb, what bothers me is his distinction between the genius and the “dull majority of men.” This sets up quite a dilemma in that a regular man, or even a genius, can easily create a piece of art without having any understanding of the subject at all. So this leads me to ask what the difference is between the man who cannot grasp the art, and the artist who cannot grasp the understanding of the subject. This is what leads to my critique of the abstractness and eccentricity of pieces such as 4’33” and the like (not that I doubt Cage's genius-ness of music in general).
I don't think that he's saying that someone who can't do art can't grasp it cause everyone to some extent can understand it. It's whether or not they are open to looking at it and examining it. Many just don't like art it has nothing to do with understanding it as there are many forms of art.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that Schopenhauer's belief about the difference between true art and concept is very interesting; it made me think about music that is totally original as opposed to music that sounds like stuff already done before. I do think he meant to say the “dull majority of men” do not have enough knowledge to understand real art. They may understand the concepts that are popular in their generation, though I don't agree with that.
ReplyDelete