Saturday, January 24, 2009

"Paradigms and Purposes" Review on the Perspective of “Versailles and Kant”


Choose one perspective from Freeman’s Chapter 2, “Paradigms and Purposes,” that particularly stands out to you and discuss it.

After reading Chapter 2, “Paradigm and Purposes,” I decided to focus on the perspective proposed by Kant, regarding the gardens of Versailles, because I felt his attitude towards gardens and art was intriguing. Kant classified gardens as a form of art in that,

“[L]andscape gardening… consists in no more than decking out the ground with the same manifold variety (grasses, flowers, shrubs, and trees, and even water, hills, and dales) as that with which nature presents it to our view, only arranged differently and in obedience to certain ideas.”

I believe Kant’s characterization and criteria of art may have had an influence in the now popular definition that art is a thoughtful rearrangement of elements. Under such a definition, a garden undoubtedly qualifies as art because it is a combination of naturally found items strategically placed by the gardener.

Kant admits that, “it seems strange that landscape gardening may be regarded as a kind of painting,” but after giving the statement some thought, I noticed remarkable similarities between a gardener creating a garden and a painter creating a painting. Despite the fact that each artist is using a different palette, the gardener using a palette of plants and the painter using a palette of colored paints, both are thoughtfully arranging their materials in a way to evoke an emotion or convey meaning.

In my experience, gardens are overlooked as a form of art because they don’t fit the social norm for what we, as a society, perceive as art. One can’t fit a garden the size of the garden of Versailles in a museum, and one is unable to capture its continuously changing aesthetics in a photograph that freezes time. The text conveyed that gardens were not perceived by Kant to be one of the highest forms of art. I disagree with Kant’s viewpoint as gardens, with the exception of animals and humans, are the only other form of “living” art. I refer to gardens as “living” because every garden continuously evolves and progresses with age. The artist is only able to manipulate a garden, as the final masterpiece is ultimately designed with the cooperation of another power regardless if you consider that power to be God, Mother Nature, or the disposition of life in itself. In that sense gardens qualify as a higher form of art and lead me to agree with Horace Walpole’s assessment that gardening is along with poetry and painting as the “three sisters or graces”.

Image Above: Gardens of Versailles

Saturday, January 17, 2009

“The Natural History of Art” Review

Is our DNA “a sort of ghostly puppet master” (96) determining our aesthetical preferences?


I believe there is partial truth in the statement that DNA is “a sort of ghostly puppet master” in determining our aesthetical preferences. It seems both probable and reasonable that humans, to a degree, are predisposed to have certain preferences. The philosophy that our idiosyncratic tastes may have a biological basis is conveyed quite persuasively through Conniff’s explanation, pertaining to survival, of why humans prefer habits rich with water, large trees, open space, and distance views.


Additionally, in my opinion, art is uninhibited in that it isn’t only visual. Sounds, by avenue of music, and culinary arts, serving as a corridor to taste, can be forms of art so long as each stimulates a sense or evokes

an emotion. The notion that humans, without conditioning, are allured by smooth sounds of nature and are fond of the sweet taste of sugar further suggest that genetics plays a role in determining instinctive preferences.


While Conniff made convincing arguments that our aesthetical preferences are depicted by our genes, I believe that the environment also plays an instrumental role. In the struggle between nature and nurture, nurture must play an influential role in our preferences as it most appropriately explains the vast amount of variability among art that humans are fond of. Genetics at best provides a foundation for our unconscious preferences, while, consciously, our preferences are defined by experiences, environmental conditioning, and social norms. If biological components were the primary determinant of our preferences then it would seem likely that my three brothers and I would all be attracted to the same types of art, but in reality we each enjoy dissimilar music, wear different clothing, are pursuing unique career paths, and participate in different extracurricular activities. Based on my personal observations, the variation in preferences and individuality we seem among humans can’t be explained without a nurture aspect being factored into the notion that nature governs our preferences.


To read article, visit https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/f60081ef35fba95c85256e6e006a2a77.


Image Above: Joan Miro "In Woman and Bird in the Moonlight" (1949)