Etonism: a suggestion of Scientific Aesthetics

Patrício Batsîkama.

When Aleksander Baumgarten invented the term Aesthetics and Immanuel Kant repeated it in his thesis about transcendentalism, both of them mentioned that «art must be studied by monotone science». Maybe some day we talk properly about ARTOLOGY, due to the speech of art. But, first of all we need to define art.

Is (Aesthetical) definition of art some problem?

Aesthetics still continues as a normative science, limited and variant consonant societies and persons. But, Art – its object of study –, is «concrete» while so large. It means, we already need a monotone science (scientific aesthetics) which studies the ART in same ways independently of region. Why not re-define the Art and look for its real instrument of analysis?

Some philosopher of the art such as Morris Wieitz desisted with the idea that «art can be defined». George Dickie analysed art with extrinsic influences using the existentialist theories, but remarked that his hypotheses were insufficient for conclusion. Nelson Goodman suggested replacing the question What is Art of Leo Tolstoy by When Art will exist. I confess that all of them were fields to aesthetical canons, each one with his particularity of chooses of method and principles. Their syntheses are more interesting and inspired me. Aesthetically, it seems that it is not easy to define art. Sociologist, philosopher, psychologist, historian define art differently.

I choose Logic way because it’s the convergence of all sciences. In Logic, we find 1) experimental sciences: physics, chemistry, etc. because of experimental and inductive method, 2) biological sciences because of the alive matter or organ; 3) moral and normative sciences etc. That’s why I think that some logical definition, based on the description on «arts united», may «resolve» this impasse.

If painting, sculpture, architecture, politics, music, dance, theatre, etc. are all art, I think that 1) we must to re-think about the auxiliary sciences[1] in Aesthetics; 2) and, essentially, we need only one definition of the term art which includes all of modalities. As we know, all of these types of art have 1) title, 2) contain and 3) form. This is the whole reality of art, historically or anthropologically; philosophically or sociologically.

Here is the etymology’s History of Art. In Greek: artyo = to adjust, artios = much adjusted, areté = virtue. In Latin: ars = personality, artus = much adjusted, artare = to press. As we can see, coming from the Armenian language, the art/creation safeguarded its semantic value in the lender’s languages in the sense that any art is «something very well adjusted» mentally and «well done» in practice at the same time. In fact Baumgarten, Kant, Hegel used the German term Kunst, art. This term means ability, neighbour of Gothic Kun-nam (to know), Kannjan (to do to know) and English know. Art is before all a philosophy, concluded GW Hegel.

The term art[2] is Armenian. Logically (and etymologically) signifies «creation». All modalities of Art have something like morphos (form), message (contain) and title. So we can define simply as «artworks[3] which form and message in congruence with the title constitute a creation[4]». In this case we re-attribute art its original sense, taking in account its plurality and variety.

The logical formula is: α= [{ς↔φ} ≡θ] ≠a[5]

In fact, African proprieties of «Beauty» are different to the Americans, for example. The canons converge in the same thing: «creation». But, progressively, the «envelope» of «art» changes when we consider different society’s aesthetics. African defines art differently to the European, for example, not because of «conception» but, I think, consonant the materialization (finalization). That’s why the «Aesthetics» of Hegel was unable to understand and explain scientifically «African art» or yet, «modern art» in due form. In other hand, the Aesthetics of Heidegger didn’t accept the pre-colonial art of Africa in scientific norms. In this case, we strictly need scientific (logical) definition of «art» where must be found all modalities, and all kind of art, existing and not yet existing.

In my viewpoint this formula seems to whole all types of art and, simultaneously, all contextual Aesthetics existing in the world. As we can see, with this formula are enclosed 1) the theory of will, 2) the theory of Beauty and 3) the philosophy of art[6]. In the World we meet «artworks» which don’t agree our will, but they’re all «art». We can also meet «artworks» without exterior beauty, but they are «art» consonant canons logically established. In both case, the Beauty and the Will are twins on essence of art: «art is creation»[7] and provokes the aesthetics emotion.

About the creation, we know the Freud thesis (The infancy of Leonardo Da Vinci). Each creation still has the personality of its creator. That is why the Christian believe that God, the Creator of the man[8], has mouth, eyes, hand, etc. All the men in the World are not beautiful if we consider the «beauty canons». Meanwhile, they all are men. It means that Art has its criteria whose can be Beauty or Ugly: but creation. And our suggestion (formula) seems to response in Aesthetics demands: definition of art which systematises the complicity of art and artist.

If art=beauty=moral, the «Urinol» of Deschamps cesses to be art. Fortunately this act in St Thomas Aquinas’s version[9] is «art». Other example: my grand-mother doesn’t like listen the Beethoven’s music but prefers Mozart. She thinks that Beethoven is frustrated, and as she likes soft peoples Mozart seems better for her. Or, both of them are recognized as Great Classical Musicians. Bicknell J. tried to explain recently[10], but I think the same with Michaud Y. who considered it as the crisis of contemporary art.[11]. Coleman Danto explains it in «After the Death of Art». This problem is largely treated by George Hagman, in his book untitled Aesthetic experience: beauty, creativity, and the search for the ideal, published by Rodopi Edition, Amsterdam- New York , 2005

This problem supposes other one: actually we use the term «artworks» in two principal senses: 1) classifying and 2) valuing. In spit of our effort in scientific terminology or notional camp, these senses are still present. In this case, Aesthetics continuing contextual (normative science), doesn’t or seems not satisfy the scientific rigidity. Meanwhile, the definition of art that we up-mentioned is essentially not 1) classifying or 2) valuing. As we can observe, it determines only the creation, independently of the will or beauty, moral or any thing else and independently of the science: aesthetics, philosophy, history, psychology, etc.

Conclusion

I am inviting you, dear colleagues Historian and Philosopher of Art, Specialists in Aesthetics, to make more efforts by developing Aesthetics as independent science. The Aesthetics is contextual, and in this sense, becomes powerless science for many scientists because we’re living the influence of exact sciences and technology. They forget that technology without moral, for example, can destroy the World. My thesis about Etonism is one of propositions on scientific Aesthetics, or autonomy of Aesthetics as science, suggesting one Logical definition of art.