Art as experience

Art is indeed a universal language, even if not simplistically so. Or perhaps more accurately, it is a whole set of varied universal and quasi-universal languages. Notice that “language” and “communication” are not synonymous. Language exists for the sake of communication but is no guarantee of success for it. Art is always a manifestation of experience which in turn is grounded in consciousness. The universality of art is therefore tied to the extent and manner of human experiencing, which in turn varies not only according to a horizontal expanse of cultural and historic diversity but also to a vertical hierarchy of being not commonly perceived for its full extent and relevance. These patterns – both horizontal and vertical – are at the heart of the dynamics of art both in terms of its manifest holism and its manifest diversity and creative autonomies. To the extent that holism is manifest, the language has communicated universally. To the extent that diversity and creative autonomy dominates the communication of artistic expression, such communication may be segregated. Yet the interface of experiencing between the art and its audience constitutes a universal principle (or perhaps a set of them). What has changed is the composition of the audience. Our own personal lens and cultural viewpoints affect our capacity to truly appreciate another culture’s art, but it does so variably and is not the only variable setting the parameters of that capacity. To the extent that the differences in art among cultures is simply a consequence of cultural differences, we can learn to transcend our restricted capacities by learning more about the culture and its art and trying to put ourselves in their place not just conceptually but experientially. Of course art is a medium that is conducive to that. To some extent that is a main point about art as regards culture, given its facility for transcending cultural barriers. But there are also hierarchical differences. For example, in his book “A New Model of the Universe” Russian mystic philosopher P.D. Ouspensky related personal accounts of his experiences visiting great works of ancient spiritual art including the Sphinx, Notre Dame Cathedral, a Buddha with sapphire eyes and others. What was communicated to Ouspensky in these experiences went far beyond the typical tourist with camera in hand. But at the same time, his experiences were also not merely subjectively personal. As a mystic myself I can vouch for how this can be. The art works were conveying real information – not rationally-based information perhaps, but often emotionally based – but information nevertheless. The information was presented by Ouspensky as universal, intrinsic to the works of art, and perceivable in the same way to anyone with a suitable state of awareness (less “asleep”). Accounts by other people support these conclusions. The esoteric master G.I. Gurdjieff explains that some of these works - he called them “objective art” – were created for the express purpose of being a repository of certain knowledge perceptible in certain states or with certain preparation. Even in less transcendental examples, we see hierarchy at play. One of our class members spoke of pop music as an expression of specifically American art, and noted the rarity and neglect of the classics. My question is, are you going by consensus on the assumption that aesthetic criteria are democratic? I’m not saying that’s wrong, but I will say it is incomplete. Who could possibly deny that Aaron Copeland, George Gershwin and Leonard Bernstein represent American music and art in a quintessential and fundamental way? Applying the idea of hierarchy, these composers could churn out sophomoric grades of pop music in their sleep by the truckload. But most of the American pop musicians – Michael Jackson included – would never be able to produce a large scale musical masterpiece of the caliber of Copeland’s “Rodeo” or Bernstein’s “West Side Story” even if you held a gun to their head. And people claiming that the only criterion of aesthetic judgment between them is “taste” are categorically wrong. A pig cannot understand fashion but a fashion designer can grasp the nature of a pig. Another pig saying the two are on the same level merely discloses its level on the hierarchy – that it is confined to the level of the pig. The claim as aesthetic philosophy carries no credibility. This leads to the question of a translation process. What translation of fashion is possible to a pig? None. So translation is only possible to people who have what Plotinus called “adequatio” – they must be of comparable hierarchy in their aesthetic sensibilities. So a person whose musical sensibilities are on the level of rap or ACDC who says their music is as good as Beethoven’s and that one person’s opinion on it is as good as anyone else’s is totally full of crap. They are like a pig who says their mud is on a par with a Paris original gown. The issue of translation is fundamentally epistemological. Those of you who have had me in prior MALS classes know you can scarcely have a discussion with me about anything without knowing the word “epistemology”, which is philosophy of knowing. For example, “this apple in my hand is red” is a different kind of knowing and truth claim from “according to Wikipedia the capital of Bolivia is La Paz.” For both truth claims to be the same kind you have to go to La Paz. Plotinus’s “adequatio” spoken of above is about epistemological hierarchy. But notice how epistemology leads directly into our final question: What are the most basic, globally shared, human experiences? While many examples come to mind, I wish to concentrate on what I believe to be the most basic and fundamental and shared of them all: consciousness (which, incidentally, is itself quite hierarchical). This is no mere tautology, and far from inconsequential to our inquiry. Our question is about human experiences. What kind of experiences do you have in a coma? And here I might as well interject as a scientist that the Newtonian worldview of a universe of dead matter and energy in interaction with a human perceiver inserted separately and anomalously like a ghost in a machine is a century obsolete. We do not live in such a universe. The data of science adamantly does not support such a view and educators who present it are outmoded and irresponsible. What does that have to do with this discussion? Actually a great deal. Experience is as fundamental to reality as matter and energy. And the Cartesian subject/object dualism is not valid. Therefore there exists a kind of intimacy between perceiver and perceived and object of perception. There is nothing more fundamental in art than the actual experience a person has with the art. The art actually exists as art in the experience of it in the moment, in which the art and the experience are united in the experience. That experience has as much ontological validity – as much “reality” – as the art itself and the experiencer itself. The central hub behind all of the qualities that make art art is just this experience in the moment. It is the “sound of one hand clapping” in Zen. Aesthetics is nutrition of experience. Quoting a dear mentor, I wish you good digestion.