KÖZ-GAZDASAG, Tudomanyos Füzetek, A
Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem,V. EVFOLYAM, 2.SZAM 2010 Aprilis, p: 103-8
ART AS REGARDS SCIENCE AND RELIGION
Dr. Ercan
Gündoğan
It is
commonly thought that art is an individual creativity producing aesthetic
values. But, without knowing what art is, we cannot define aesthetic value
as well. John Berger suggests in his Picasso book that art is a way
of seeing. Social scientists suggest that it is a form of learning.
However, they do not have any definition of art. Here I am concerned with the differentiating,
distinctive characteristic of art itself rather than the conceptions of art
products. Given that human beings have many different modes of seeing,
understanding, expression and communication, an exact definition of art can be
provided only with direct references to science and religion which are other
two dominant forms of human intellectuality. Why we mention here, only art,
science and religion is because they are the only systematic learning and
seeing systems humans have hitherto produced.
As commonly
conceived, the distinctive aspects of art are based on individuality, creativity
and aesthetics. If those concepts sufficient identify art, we have to
ask whether science or religion, as two other different forms of learning and
seeing, can not have these characteristics as well.
It can be
said that science distinguishes itself with proof principle from art or
religion. Scientific inquiry starts with theses, initial ideas, doubts and even
prejudices. It tries to reveal initial and essential dynamics of the
subject-matter and express them in the form of scientific laws. At the end it
has to justify and prove its initial arguments. At least it has to be directed
to this purpose.
The
principle of proof also shows another aspect of scientific inquiry, which is
most controversial for scientific communities. It is the tension between
absolute and relative truth. However, if one accepts that science puts forward
some laws, these laws necessarily imply absolute truths of the science under
consideration. It is sure that absolute truths are reinterpreted, tested,
improved or left aside, partially or completely when they are seen inadequate
or wrong in the face of new social relations, new social needs
and new social problems. Here, it is seen that the meanings of truth, of
absolute and of laws are confined to the history and geography of human beings.
Good example is the labour theory of value, which is only absolute in the
context of capitalist mode of production, which is confined to a historical and
geographical framework. Thus, absolute does not refer to any eternal and fixed
truths.
As for
relativity, I observe that it is an unfortunate concept, as long is it is
understood as the opposite of absolute. However, relative refers to a
context and a relation of different forces originated from and belonging to the
same totality. For example, time cannot be identified or measured
without having and referring to space. Time and space are absolutely essential
parts of change and movement and they can be defined in relation to each other.
Absolute is limited with time and space, has a relation to time and
space and hence it is relative. As regards science, it can be said that it
seeks to find absolute and relative at the same time as the truths of
certain time and certain space (read time as history and space as
geography).
Art does not
attempt to prove anything, as correct or wrong, valid or invalid. But, it seeks
to reveal a sort of truth which can be considered as aesthetic truths in the
form of basic rules, standards, and levels. It defines the framework of beauty
or ugliness as two opposing aesthetic values. These values may be composed of
according to the branch of art of sounds, figures, gestures, behaviors, lines,
words, shapes, tastes, textures with different kinds of materials, social,
natural or imagined. However, do we have objective criteria for the
determination or definition of beauty or ugliness? Are beauty and ugliness
completely under the domain of subjectivity, or to say, social and cultural
relativism?
I think the
reverse is true on the contrary of popular belief.
Tastes and
preferences, and at the end, aesthetic values, not only change but also develop
with the material and mental development, intellectuality, education and class
mobility. If we interpret Aristotle, a development from basic to complex
existence implies a development from basic to complex tastes and preferences.
It is widely observed phenomenon that with further education, higher class status
and bigger material wealth, human beings tend to taste more complicated and
complex products of art, having more elaborated aesthetic values. Here, we can
adopt and adapt Marx who is saying that ideology of the dominant class forms
the dominant thoughts in society, to the fact that dominant tastes and dominant
aesthetic preferences belong to the dominant classes. This is simply because of
social mobility from lower classes towards dominant, ruling classes, which also
usually requires the acquisition of the aesthetic preferences of the higher
classes. They are generally more complex, complicated products of higher
artistic talents. The value content of these far more sophisticated aesthetic
products are higher according to the labour theory of value. For this reason,
their prices are higher or their values cannot be monetized. To be able to
consume them, more money, time and education are required. Accordingly, these
products are socially consumed by the upper classes. A brief comparison of the
main consumers of popular ballads with those of symphony music demonstrates
that the dominant classes tend to prefer far more complicated art products and
tastes that are the products of higher social labour. Our observation is valid
at least for the aristocratic stratums of the bourgeois classes and the highly
educated stratums of the petty bourgeoisie.
We have seen
the absolute and relative characteristics of beauty and ugliness are socially
determined, or to say, contingent upon social context. They are absolute in
that they are closely related with and determined by the labour theory of value
and they are relative in that social relation and the social position offer and
create different principles of beauty and ugliness.
Nonetheless,
showing that art has absolute and relative characteristics is not sufficient
for us to demonstrate the distinctive characteristics of art as in the case of
proof principle in science.
In order to
reveal this kind of principle for art, I suggest us to look at a man or woman
seeing a great art product, which is acknowledged by the art experts. It is not
surprising to observe that this person can easily understand whether he or she
faces a great art product. But how does he or she understand this? Common
experience demonstrates that art product shows us the reality or something
imagined in a different way either by interpreting, distorting or
changing somehow of the subject matter the artistic product deals with.
Nonetheless, we do not reach a definition since distorted or interpreted
reality or images are not adequate to have an artistic product.
How this
person recognizes that he or she has faced an art product? It is known that
without having any definition obtained through the study of art, a common
experience immediately makes us know that we see an artistic product. Without
defining it consciously, this person is impacted by the different form the
artistic product presents. Actually here we have gotten closer to the
definition of art: a form different, original, attractive, having a concern of
beauty and ugliness we cannot find completely in scientific and religious
activities directly and completely. It is the impact of artistic form that
helps us understand the meaning of art. So, the task is to define this impact.
For a beginning
I can suggest that art exerts a magical and a spiritual impact that
distinguishes it from science, religion or any other forms of learning, knowing
or expression. On the ground of this artistic impact, even an ordinary
(meaning poorly educated) person, having only a common experience about
art, can understand that he or she faces an art product. This product may be a
cave drawing, a Michelangelo sculpture, a Dadaist painting, or a postmodern
example of architecture. Our criterion for definition of art is the perception
and understanding of an ordinary person who I assume has no education and
training about art.
Though art
shares many elements with religion in terms of magic and spirit, which are
the holy manifestations of God, religion is a belief of masses that need
magic and spirit that disappears in an ordinary everyday life. Magical and
spiritual share close meaning. Magic is to create unbelievable changes showing
talent and skill. It separates causes from effects and has an impact something
unknown can have. It is the distinctive aspect of magic in which all mediation
process disappears so that relation between and change from, cause and effect,
reason and result, becomes a secret. Spiritual makes the same by separating
soul from body, idea from material. According to these definitions, art tends
to get closer to religion. However, it is not surprising that both are deeply
concerned with infinite, absolute and eternal.
Religion
transfers an imagined heaven to the hell of the real life or vice versa. In
return, it demands and requires the obedience of the believer to the rules and
assumptions of historically old traditions and belief systems. Its other
characteristics are that it establishes an order, and promises new eternal and
secret world that can be reached at the end of this finite and profane life.
Religion can be considered as the art and science, philosophy and morality, law
and order of the masses. It explains, regulates, address, decides, develops,
improves and helps the ordinary masses. You may have many gods or only one.
Religion divides the universe into creator and created, infinite and finite,
subject and object, ruler and ruled, powerful and week, cosmos and chaos,
nature and human, center and periphery. It can be seen that almost all
dichotomies from which we suffer in any scientific activity have some origins
in religious beliefs.
As for
science, it can be observed in all systematically and theoretically developed
learning processes which at the end remain faithful to the principle of proof.
As stated above, without proofing, science cannot differentiate itself from art
or religion. No need to say that scientific activity, like all other artistic
and religious activities, can be seen in all systematic and theoretical human
thought and act. A craftsman or an artist can work scientifically, using
scientific methods and techniques. Similarly, a scientist may give his or her
work an artistic form.
While
science is based on the principle of proofing, religion just demands our
belief, which means accepting without questioning and objecting, and when
demanded by the believers, it can demonstrate no proof other than miracles,
which are simply the supernatural events. On the other hand, art is related with
neither proof principle nor beliefs. It is related and concerned with magical,
glorious and respectful impact over senses and thoughts. It does this by
creating so called “artistic” forms of any content, which may cover any idea,
thought, sense or observation. The magical and spiritual impacts
of artistic product are the tests of whether we confront with art itself.
Thanks to
and due to its impact, the product under question can be considered as the
subject of art. In order to create this impact, an artist tries to
develop the most impacting forms, which are an accumulation of art
history, art education, art community, individual background, talents and
skills.
Magical and spiritual created by artistic
process acquires its power from establishing the old unity of science, art and
religion of the remote past of human history. On the other hand, before
modernity, science and philosophy on one side, art and religion on the other
side, formed their own unities. Moreover, there were no strict demarcation
lines between two groups as well. Even more, art, science, philosophy and
religion formed an intellectual unity, which would dissolve through modernity
into different specializations and compartments. This old unity was capable of
creating the most magical and spiritual impacts over senses and thoughts.
For this reason, it is not surprising that great artists and artistic products
make us think of the great, magical and spiritual unity of art, science
and religion. Otherwise, how can be explained that even an uneducated person is
immediately influenced, impacted by the products of the great artists such as those
of Vinci, Brahms, Tolstoy or Picasso. Maybe more powerful impacts can be seen
in the holy books, imaginary life of prophets, poetical and epical words spoken
in the name of Gods and their earthly representations.
It is well
known fact that modernity introduces a secularization process which dissolves
the old premature unity of religion, science and art. However, secularization
just means the putting of human being into the center and leaving the god at
the periphery of all change and development. Accordingly, creative power of God
has been transferred and attributed to the creativity of human beings. The idea
of creativity has been hence secularized as well.
The magic
and spirit of art stem from this secularization and transference of god’s assumed
creativity into human beings. The impact of art on human senses, thoughts and
behaviors originates, not only from the old premature unity of all learning
processes of the cave man, but also from this secularization process of god’s
creativity during modernity.
Magic and
spirit behind the creativity
attributed to art comes from this complex past. However, they have been
transferred to art at the expense of science and philosophy. We observed that
not only science and philosophy was separated from each other, but also science
was separated from art, its creative capabilities as well. The result was the
science which gave up the ideas such as absoluteness, totality,
transhistorisizm and universality.
In our time,
more or less all scientists dislike and reject these ideas, which have been
already given up, they represent the rejection of science, they think. They
instead prefer relativism, partiality, temporality and particularity.
One that is empirical and proof based is thought to be the necessary beginning
and ending of any scientific activity. Theory has been reduced to the summaries
of the past researches and the methodology of the research apart from initial
hypotheses put forward to start scientific process.
On the other
hand, art maintains the old tradition and tries to discover and demonstrate
absoluteness, totality, transhistorisizm and universality. For this reason, its
magical and spiritual impact can still help define what art is. It is a secularized
religion and artist is the secular god. This idea can be supported
by observing that the periods of humanism, renaissance, the great discoveries
and the great artists were both products of and driving forces behind the
secularization of the world during modernity.
Modern
science, too, owns its power
and prestige to the secularization process of modernity. However, ironically,
this process has also introduced ordinary research processes without
creating magical impact on human sense, thoughts and behaviors. The exceptions
are always the great revolutionary scientists. Magical reputations Isaac
Newton, Charles Darwin, Karl Marx and Albert Einstein, among others, come from
their holistic approaches, their insistence on universalism, transhistorical imagination
and even their absolute claims. They, like artists, liked absolute
like creativity to understand the world of human beings and nature as a totality.
Immense impacts of these kinds of scientists upon our modern civilization show
that the great science insists on the reproduction and dialectic supersession of
the old unities between science, philosophy, art and religion. However, this
insistence does not reproduce the old characteristics of those forms of
learning and understanding. Art, science and philosophy should no longer be the
works of separated and isolated individual creators, but those of the
individuals as autonomous members of a certain society of a certain historical
era. They otherwise individually represent the theoretical understanding of the
dispersed consciousness of their era, as it turns out. As for religion, it is
clear that it has already lost its content even for the masses and survives
only as forms. Great science and great art deprive religion of its creator, the
God, re-appropriating the characteristics of god in the form of human
intelligence, rationality and creativity.
Above, we
have mentioned that religion divided “the universe into creator and created,
infinite and finite, subject and object, ruler and ruled, powerful and week,
cosmos and chaos, nature and human, center and periphery” and stated that
“almost all dichotomies from which we suffer in any scientific activity have
some origins in religious beliefs”. We can conclude that great art and great
science do not suffer from these dichotomies. Especially art tries to surpass
and transcends the divisions which religion introduces. The great scientists
also maintain the same work.
The magical
and spiritual impact of art stems from this attempt. Actually the impact of
art is the definition of art itself. Science gets closer to this status
of art when it tries to surpass and transcends the divisions and dichotomies
which are the characteristics of any religion.
When
Nietzsche said that if god exists we do not, if we exist, god does not; he
seems to have added that, if god exists, art and science do not, if we exist,
god does not.
In sum, art,
science and religion are closely related forms of human intellectuality. We can
differentiate them in terms of proof principle, magical-spiritual impact and
the idea of God. Art and science competes wit the idea of God in different
manners. Former is the secular and individualized form of religion while the
latter puts forward the idea of proof which does not exist in any religion. On
the other hand, science and art can be differentiated on the grounds of both
proof principle that science has and magical and spiritual impact that art has.
However, this sort of crystallization that has taken place with and through
modernity may turn into a new synthesis of art, science and religion. This may
be realized in a world, which is simultaneously magical, spiritual, aesthetic,
moral and rational.
