Recognizing my bias against the whole notion of art is important for this particular essay. Can I really separate my ability in art and my opinion of art? It is no secret at this point that I have a nihilistic opinion of art, voiding any standards as mere mirages of objectivity, and undermining validation for those who call art an intellectual home. I usually find time to chuckle at folks who disillusion themselves into believing in this art/deity symbiotic relationship. All people, psychology speaking, need God. So if they culturally will not accept the religious aspect of “God,” they will intrinsically replace the notion with some other cultural element. Perhaps, its science, or art, or sports, but people crave that belief structure; they lose all meaning with out it. Again a point of amusement for me, as those in society who have become “enlightened” by the truth of God’s non existence, find themselves diverting all that ideological energy toward some other leap of faith. In Art’s case, finding and setting standards engender the meaning that so many crave.

Yet, here I am, ignoring my own bias just to get a few laughs from an overly dogmatic culture. I do not want there to be standards of art, simply because it asserts my vulnerability in someway. Because I am not good at art, I want to trivialize it to mere aberration. What is the consequence of such a belief? What do I truly intend by perpetuating such a belief? The dogmatists at least provide structure. The dogmatists at least provide a venue from which to have this conversation. Should it be my desire to rid the world of all discussion because it “appears” to be more trouble then it is worth?

The New God

Hegel discussed a very important paradigm with in the history of thought. His assertion can also be used to understand the origin of philosophical presuppositions. However, there is a slight issue with the linear progression of Hegel’s theory. Hegel believes this process to be always progressing, illuminating synthesis after synthesis. But Hegel fails to realize that certain presuppositions stem from ideas that are technically generated after the original presupposition. For example, I would argue that ultimate question that has yet be answered, and once answered will provide a domino effect of truth with in every genre of study, is the question, what is the true nature of humanity. But certainly, humanity is not the beginning of the dialectic. The beginning of the presuppositional dialectic should lie with in the confines of cosmogony. Establishing the order of things should certainly come before the established teleology of humanity. However, if one puts this ideological relationship under a microscope, they will see that the reason cosmogony even exists in the human lexicon is due to its instrumental worth. Humanity is not concerned with the order of things as direct knowledge. But rather they are interested in determining the order of things to best clarify humanity’s position with in the universe, and thus determine what our natural inclinations are.

Establishing human nature provides an answer to all the questions that seemingly plague human existence. If we could determine whether or not we all are truly selfish, we could provide the groundwork for the acceptance or prohibition of morality in the social sense. Selfishness also provides an antithesis to all so called “objective” truths. If all humanity is simply concerned with their own well being FIRST, then solidarity is innately undermined. At the same token, if humanity is to find that we are neither selfish nor generous, that we have in fact found a good balance, then humanity can re-establish most social norms and feel comfortable doing so. Humanity can be at ease regarding individual bias, and be rest-assured that social limitations are instituted with the best intentions in mind.

With relation to art, this question concerning human nature is at the core of establishing or destroying artistic standards. Deductive reasoning should show that if humanity’s is condemned to its own selfishness, then finding and establishing artistic standards is impossible. Overwhelmed with its own transcendental biases, humanity would never, and could never decide on a set of standards that would reflect the whole of society.

There is an important, and ironic element that is illuminated through the relationship between human nature and the objectivity of art. It is a common cliché to link art with human nature, but not in the way that I have done. Rather, most people feel it is correct to link art with human nature in the sense of art being a mirror for human nature. Art is the conduit from which natural inclinations can be contextualized and understood. What an outrageous claim! Such an assertion is not only wrong, but simply undeterminable. As if the confluence of artistic genre’s can provide an insight to human nature that is not provided by any other characteristic in society, if anything art can be seen as a piece of the puzzle, but not the mirror from which we can derive actual answers. It is with in this frame of mind, and erroneous thinking that engenders the substitution of God for Art. In its most esoteric sense, Art is seen by its adorers as a mirror from which life’s greatest mystery can be solved. Art can reflect humanity’s nature and thus can be the avenue from which politics, morality and religion can be finally put in their place. My personal favorite such culprit of this philosophical atrocity is Nietzsche.

He spends an enormous amount of time undermining every traditional thought that society has produced. He mocks religion and its “slave” origins. He mocks history for being too pervasive in the present. He even mocks Socrates for “rationalizing” morality. Yet somewhere along the line, Nietzsche figured out that he too, needed meaning, and he found such meaning through Art. Amazingly enough, and rigidly contextual to this essay, one of, if not the most well-known quote from Nietzsche is “God is Dead.” However, apparently, there was a line that was lost in the translation, the text should read as follows “God is Dead, and has been resurrected as Art, Art will forever be punctuated for it now takes on the characteristics of the All Mighty.” (Perhaps an unfair interpretation, but funny nonetheless.) Nietzsche was also known as the anti-Christ, and reveled in such a role. He was proud of himself for resisting the lure and temptation that is the philosophical babysitting method of religious thought. You could feel his smugness coming through his words, even when he was attacking something other then religion. A smugness that is rooted in his belief that he has found that true meaning, he has found his God, quite ironic for such perspectivist.

There are many others who commit the fallacy of false representation. In fact, there is probably not one person on this planet that is not totally subjugated by the transcendent search for meaning, be it God, Art, or hopefully the Redskins playoff hopes. But I pick on Nietzsche because he should know better. His writing screams a sense of the arbitrary and petty nature of human expectation. Yet he still fines himself confined to encompassing some type of silver lining through his writing. He may feel himself to be the philosophical anti-Christ, but he falls well short of this role by perpetuating this “sliver lining.” The anti-Christ should only be interested in despair, not the aesthetically pleasing sounds of Wagner.

Commodification and Conceptualization

As stated before, Nietzsche’s desire to latch on to meaning through the use of Art is part of a human paradigm that suggests validation is achieved through established meaning. But why then, must Nietzsche feel compelled to publish his thoughts, and go beyond the necessary requirements for living a meaningful life? The answer can somewhat be found in the wise writings of two fellow Germans, Adorno and Horkheimer.

Validation can be seen in two different ways. The first way is the intellectual validation. This can be found in as mundane a situation as someone you respect showing adoration for an idea you have presented. On the other extreme, this validation can be found through the writing of a major philosophical work that has a transcendent impact of future generations. Either method can reach the end goal of validation, and neither method is more important then the other. While on the surface, it would appear that it would be much more fulfilling to produce a sublime text that will have a profound impact upon society; this is not necessarily the case. Much of the desire to produce such a profound text is rooted in the desire to prove those around you that your ideas are worthy of such a cause. Often times, many great thinkers will be more impacted by those they have failed to convince in their own lives, rather then the plethora of adoration they would receive from a great piece of writing.

The second form of validation, or perhaps, second half of the validation puzzle, is monetary validation. The capitalistic structure of society can be said to provide the effective and efficient nature that most of the Western World enjoys in the modern day. This same structure, however, is not with its social impacts. Capitalism impacts the way humanity sees “value.” Rather then incorporating the time and effort put into the construction of the product, value in capitalism is almost purely based on what amount can be received for it. In other words, if I can get someone to pay three hundred dollars for a pair of my dirty, disgusting, and moldy soccer socks from high school, then those decayed artifacts from five years ago are worth, three hundred dollars. Vice versa, if I put time in effort into sewing and stitching a nice warm winter blanket, I have expectations of a reasonable price for my labor. However , if the market has an influx of good, warm winter blankets that particular season, than my blanket’s value will drop considerably, even though the time and effort I put into its construction did not diminish at all.

While, ideally, you would like to think that this definitional change of what value is would not impact the aesthetics with in contemporary society, it is just simply not true. All elements and behavioral systems have an impact on the way humanity will psychologically evaluate itself. The system of capitalism is no different. Establishing an arbitrary value system (ok, ok supply and demand, but even the determining factors of these concepts are rooted in fairly arbitrary methods.) through capitalism plays its role in effecting the human psyche. Nietzsche, although he would adamantly deny this charge, is just another example of hoe capitalism not only affected his discourse, but also his opinion on art. Nietzsche scholars might argue as to whether he was truly consumed with monetary validation or not, but he clearly was, for he would have not felt it necessary to publish his works and receive subsequent compensation for them. Because currency is so important to maintaining stability and comfort, this definition of value begins to define what is and what is not important. People begin to define themselves through how much money they make. The way an employer rewards an employee is through a raise; the way a parent rewards a child is by buying them something; the way a teacher motivates his students is through making them believe that what their learning will somehow help them in the “real world.” (A tacky way of saying “make money.”) All these examples provide a positive reward system for the individual, and thus (live Pavlov’s Dog) engender psychological triggers that engrain this arbitrary value system in them.

Nietzsche was simply a product of this line of thinking, and the implications are more pervasive them perhaps thought. Money makes the world go “round. It is seen as the primary instrument toward happiness, and moreover, survival. Considering the transcendent impact that the word “survival” carries with in humanity, it would seem quite difficult to somehow escape this mindset. Therefore, it would seem fair to assert that all thought, philosophical or not, is impacted by this system of economics. People are not creating art for art”s sake, but rather for a sense of monetary validation that is revered in the culture.

Adorno and Horkheimer knew this to be the case. They attacked the very foundation of modern art, and vilified it as tampered (Much like Roger Clemens.) They discussed how the almighty search for profit will always undermine the search for aesthetic standard, and true beauty. For German tag-team, it seemed unfair to make insinuations about the nature of art and beauty, when the human ability to create such aesthetics is conceptualized under false pretenses. Humanity thinks it is making art, when in reality, humanity is making money, through the exploitation of previous, and traditional artistic standards. Art is simply a means to a financial end. Moreover, people’s love for art is used to further economic progress. Movies and shows provide examples of a life not so closely resembling reality, but lives certainly considered in the normative. The fictional stories create high expectations that are normally never met and thus cause anxiety. Anxiety is then treated using very expensive drugs that can vacuum more money away from the consumer and into the pockets of the extremely wealthy. The system is actually quite ingenious, and also quite self-serving and sufficient.

The German tag-team also discussed in more detail, the concept of conceptualization (nice, I know.) Conceptualization is the all inclusive and pervasive idea that all humanity is run by (intellectually speaking) is a series and catalogue of concepts. Humanity becomes overwhelmed and ultimately dominated by a definitional reality. Each person lives not necessary through synthetic and experienced truths, but rather using experience to outline previous concepts already learned. Again, the idea here is essentially that there is another “enframed” (thanks Heidegger) reality that gets cognitive validation, and through such validation comes the mitigating of true discourse. It appeals to another one of Heidegger’s ideas, but discerning between “correct” and “true.” The analytic versus synthetic binary that exists has been a chief concern for much of the history of philosophy. Adorno and Horkheimer were able to take this binary and apply it to contemporary forms of art.

While it appears that the German Tag-team has hit the nail on the head of this issue, unlike their German predecessor Nietzsche; appearances can be deceiving. For Adorno and Horkheimer, there is a light at the end of the tunnel (I’m sensing a theme here). The pair feels that true art lies outside the bounds of the world of concepts. Because conceptualization has undermined what true art and beauty are, all that one needs to do to recapture aesthetic grace is formulate their artistic ingenuity outside of concepts. Seems fairly simple, right?

Again, we see the same fallacy with Adorno and Horkheimer as we see with Nietzsche. The pair is willing to assert the problematic nature with an increasingly commoditized world, yet they also find themselves perpetuating this same problem. By even placing pen to paper and bestowing their work upon the world, they are commoditizing their own anti-commodity philosophy. They also, by their own writings, must understand that they are also subjugated to this same concept-driven mindset, and thus are also subjugated to their perverted discourse toward truth. The question truly becomes, how can two, seemingly astute, social critics assert such a clear and rational critique of the modern day, yet still fall victim to the irrationality the “sliver lining” clause? The answer is simple. They too, need meaning, They too, need money. They too fall victim to the transcendent element of the validation of human behavior. Honestly, how can Adorno and Horkheimer claim that concepts run our conceptual lives, on every level, and then turn around and say “WAIT! We can still find meaning if we escape from these concepts? That kind of irrationality from rational men can only be explained by illuminating the fact that there is something that impacts humanity at its very core, even before cognition begins.

Art Class

I mentioned earlier in this essay that there is something to be known by understanding the “participatory” role that art has assumed with in the educational system. As I also stated before, I was made to feel very stupid for not getting a higher then a C- in my 9th grade art class. I felt very stupid because the class is essentially based on participation, not on the merit or ingenuity of one’s work. What is the implication to such a role for art with in academia? The implication is that society, perhaps discretely, as to not offend the artsy folks of the world, have branded art with the label of “subjective” or even better “relative.” It is really the only subject, besides physical education, that even at its general level (that is not in a higher level art class in college or Graduate school) is completely about participation and ultimately patronage. Humanity intrinsically understands that art is relative, and moreover, that creating standards for art is really only beneficial for the esoteric factions that lie with in art. Society has deemed it important to learn and be vigorously tested on math, history, science and English, because these subject matters provide stability through standard. Art has no universal standard, thus it exists with in constant flux.

Art shares this characteristic with the study of philosophy. Unlike art though, Philosophy usually does not even make high school curriculum. Again, the implication of this exclusion is that philosophy is innately subjective. There is no universal standard for what is good philosophy, thus it cannot be bureaucratized the way math or science can be. In math and science, one can see the range of abilities that each group of students has. What makes a good philosopher? Can he or she recite every major philosopher, and underscore their main assertions? Can he or she analytically dissect the subject matter at hand? Can he or she write effectively and wit clarity? All of these characteristics COULD make a good philosopher, but who knows? Truth has not been found, thus, one cannot judge who the best philosopher is.

A better question, from my perspective, is one of a sociological and obviously psychological view point. The terms objective and subjective get thrown around a lot in both philosophy, and really, everyday life. Humanity seems to have a grasp on what is objective. Math is objective because there is a right and a wrong answer. Science is situationally objective because there may be a universal set of laws that always react in the same way, but there is enough empirical evidence to make situational hypothesis regarding consequences. On the other side of the spectrum, there is much discussion about whether to classify subjects like art and philosophy as either subjective or objective. This seems like a waste of time. If you have to question whether or not a subject matter is objective or subjective, then simply by asking the question, you are inferring the subjective nature of that topic. If you’re not convinced, think about the definitional reality of these two terms. Objective= certainty. Subjective= uncertainty. Asking a questions infers, you guessed it, uncertainty. The debate over the characterization of philosophy and art serves a purpose, however. It serves to mask, at least somewhat, the subjective nature of these two topics; the ambiguity that is obtained through such a debate is what allows both to engender a level of expertise and thus strive for validation. For, as stated before, validation cannot come with out standard.

Conclusion

It seems fitting that art and philosophy end up together at the end of the story. These two subjects depend on one another, for something I would like to call “circular objectivity.” They re-enforce each other’s existence, mostly through the phrase “What about Mozart and Kant?” each name depicting a level expertise in each field. The relationship between art and philosophy goes even deeper. The two find themselves as the biggest contributors to the search for meaning, and consequently find themselves to be the answer to many people’s questions regarding where they are to find meaning. In this individualized society, art and philosophy are the ultimate substitute for God. They provide limitless amounts of meaning, which in turn can be adopted by pretty much anyone.

I found my meaning through philosophy. And consequently, I found a way to trivialize my search for meaning through philosophy as well. The only thing that I feel comfortable asserting anymore is that I really, really do not know. What is good art, what is bad art? Can we have good art with out knowing what bad art is? And vice versa?

On a more personal note:

I found myself wandering into your office a few times during the semester. Sometimes to explain my disappearing acts that I pulled through out the course and other times to just simply shoot the shit. I felt comfortable discussing some of my thoughts with you on my nihilistic gaze, because I could sense that you come from a similar mindset. One particular day, I was ranting and raving about their being no truth, and how this bureaucratic philosophy is bullshit. You responded very simply that I needed to find “meaning.” This stuck with me. Meaning? Did I not have meaning before? Does not the mere existence of this world imply that there is none? Sure, people can disillusion themselves into finding meaning through religion or art, but is this application of meaning truly rational? It seems that I have but two choices in my life. Find irrational meaning and be happy, or except what I feel to be true, and be miserable.

As morbid as this sounds, I would rather be miserable. Not because I am adhering to some Hollywood notion of individuality and the righteousness of truth, but rather to abdicate this hole in my life. I wish I had the choice to be miserable. But instead, I am forever subjected to the search for meaning, even if it is nihilistic.

These are just interpretations of philosophers, and are extremely subjective.