Katharsis

In chapter 2 of Freeland’s book we were introduced to several great thinkers’ perspectives on art and art theory. From Plato’s ideas to the gardens’ of kings, everyone has their own thoughts on what constitutes art and why it affects us the way it does. The philosopher I related the most to in this chapter was Aristotle. His description of the cathartic experience involved with art describes almost exactly how I feel about the artistic process and experience. Plato’s ideas about Forms and Ideas are interesting, and exciting to study but I feel that regardless of the fact that art may simply be an imitation, it is no less real than the reality we each create every day. Human emotion may just be the only truly ‘real’ thing in this world and art evokes it, therefore art itself must be real. Aristotle’s discussions of the Greek Tragedy and the feelings the audience undergoes over the course of the play really struck me. Why is it that something we all know is fabricated can make us feel everything the characters feel? We form emotional attachments to the characters; we worry about them, we are sad when they perish and we cry when they are hurt. Plato says that art is thrice detached from reality, so it shouldn’t affect us. On the contrary, Aristotle argues that the way art imitates our realities help us learn and grow. Watching a tragedy and going through such a wide range of emotions will lead to a katharsis. This is especially true of the performing arts and music, yet the cathartic experience is also present in the entirety of the artistic process. As a sculptor creates his masterpiece, he too experiences a wide range of emotions including frustration, love, despair, tranquility, and in some cases perhaps heartache or remorse. The completion of the piece brings about katharsis, but only does so due to the range of emotions the artist goes through during the creative process. In a similar manner, the tragedy takes us on that path to katharsis. Art helps us have these feelings and cleanse ourselves of them, even though we know the sculpture and the characters aren’t actually in themselves ‘real.’ I am a classically trained singer, so singing is my art and my path to a cathartic experience. Singing helps me express emotions I am unable to put words to, yet the most important piece is the cleansing that occurs after I have put my sweat and tears into a piece and perform it flawlessly. The process of learning and perfecting the piece is one that brings about nearly all the basic human emotions. When I finally perform the piece I am cleansed of all the emotions that went into it. Humans do not always understand our own emotions, and art facilitates the natural and necessary katharsis we may not be able to achieve on our own.

The Natural History of Art

This article and the prompt have led me to the conclusion that art and evolution will never be fully understood…and maybe that’s the beauty that lies in each topic. And perhaps there is no reason at all to assume from the beginning that they are inherently separate. As a genetics major, I am head over heels in love with our genes and how they influence everything from disease predisposition to mate choice. So for me, this begs the question…why not art?
Aesthetic preferences, at some level, are biologically based. Human babies prefer images that are symmetrical, so is it not possible that other types of basic aesthetics are ingrained into our psyches? Coniff’s article does it’s best to explain and defend this point, but in light of our class discussion I feel he could have been more compelling. Despite a slight lack of literary prowess, there are several issues in the article that stood out to me. I was able to feel a connection to art, my world, the earth, and my ancestors in a very different way than I had previously experienced. I started thinking about my current needs and how vastly they differ from those of my predecessors, which in turn made me wonder if there are any similarities between us at all. Conniff’s article had some great points that helped me decide that maybe this concept of aesthetics is one of the things that ties us together as humans. By no means do I think this article is suggesting that all opinions on art and all artists are influenced solely by inherent, genetic fears and needs. I do however believe Conniff is trying to establish a baseline and perhaps a reason behind certain aesthetic qualities, and feelings associated with those qualities, that permeate the generations.
For example, something I felt was neglected in class was this link to “habitat selection.” Conniff discusses most aesthetic preferences in a link to habitat selection as a deep, unconscious basis for being drawn to certain settings and art, particularly in reference to landscapes. He is not saying that all people are attracted to a, b, and c because of reasons 1, 2 and 3…he is simply laying out the possibilities and saying perhaps there is a connection here. I believe there is. What makes one piece of property more valuable than another even if they are in the same neighborhood with the same square footage? A view? Landscaping? Now who is to say we don’t seek comfort in these things due, in part, to a genetic need for safety and resources?
Art has been a part of human nature since, I would like to think, the dawn of man. It has always been there for us to express ourselves; our ideas, hopes, fears and cultures. Just because there are differences in our artistic tastes due to the time period or culture does not imply that there is absolutely no biological basis for aesthetics.