Artes plasticas and emotion

Count Tolstoy wrote "The whole science of aesthetics fails to do what we might expect from it, being a mental activity calling itself a science; namely it does not define the qualities and laws of art. 

I carefully defined visual art following Dickie (1971:41), who wrote regarding classificatory definitions, that the definition needs to "specify the necessary and sufficient conditions needed for something to be a work of art. A necessary condition for being an X is a characteristic which any object must have in order to be an X. A sufficient condition of an X is a characteristic, which, if an object has that characteristic, it is an X."

As Socrates argued, if we examine a word's usage, we will find some element that is common to all examples of being, but not to other things, and then we will be able to isolate that element as the essence which the defines the category of things. 

I accept that art is human-made. I will discuss animal "art" at some point.Art arouses an emotion, referred to by some as the aesthetic emotion, meaning a unique emotion aroused only by making and viewing art. 

I carefully omitted the function of art when I defined it. As arouse emotion is a function I omitted it from my definition, writing that 

This definition, while appealing, has a number of problems. First, it fails to distinguish what art is from what art does (e.g., arouse an emotion). Further, it runs the risk of being tautological, inferring a mental state from the art and then using the mental state to explain art (Lewis-Williams 1982). In addition, although the emotion aroused by art is said to be pleasure, much of art is said to arouse grave feelings, or it may leave the viewer bewildered, confused, nonplussed, unsure of any emotional reaction (Anderson 1979). Indeed, art may not arouse any emotion; it may arouse “no aesthetic interest” (Brothwell 1976). Another issue, as McEvilley (1992: 161) noted, is that “one serous problem with a definition of art that stresses aesthetic or expressive qualities is that such a definition eliminates much of what has been called art for the last seventy years.”I recognize that the emotions associated with visual art and ritual can be profound. I also recognize, however, that not all viewers would have shared my response and that emotions are fleeting and difficult to articulate (Anderson 1979). Further, I don’t know what emotion the dancers were experiencing and I cannot tell you what thoughts or beliefs might have inspired their behavior. Are we really safe in assuming that all dancers share the same emotions, thoughts, and/or beliefs?

A more serious issue here, however, is that emotions and mental processes probably exist because of the influence they have on behavior, particularly social behavior. An exclusive focus on art and emotion may lead us to ignore art’s social effects. The assumption that any emotions associated with a behavior implies that the behavior is necessarily adaptive can lead even scientific studies astray. Eating high fat foods can be pleasurable; eating many such meals could help promote an early death from chronic disease. While the scarcity of fat in our ancestors’ diet may have promoted our ancestors’ taste for fat, fats are no longer a dietary scarcity. Environments change, and behaviors that were once adaptive may no longer be adaptive. To turn to art, we may say art arouses emotions, but have to ask what art and in whom does it arouse emotion. We don't know whether or not emotion is universally experienced by viewing or making art. We cannot know if art evolved because of any possible emotions associated with it nor can we argue that even if emotions were associated with art in the ancestral past that such emotions are currently adaptive - could art lead us to behave in maladaptive ways?  

The point of this discussion is not that thoughts or emotion, or even the presumed aesthetic emotion, are irrelevant to visual art. In fact, we can assume that visual art attracts us because it interests us, presumably by provoking some emotion. However, even if we assume that art does arouse an emotion, we still do not know what elicits the emotion. Is it aroused by the color, pattern, form, technique, or the experiences associated with the art object? 

This said, today I was reading  a book entitled Ancient Art and Ritual, written by Jane Ellen Harrison (LL.D and D.lit). It was published in 1913. She wrote, in regard to music, that not everyone responds to music - that people can be tone deaf. However, if they do respond emotionally to the music it is a much more profound experience. I need to think about that a little bit. Any suggestions, please let me know. 

Other possible characteristics to possibly be discussed at another time are 

Symbols and meaning

creativity and individualism