Schopenhaur, Schopenhaur, Schopenhaur...

My butt has been thoroughly kicked by finals. So in lieu of this week's Artist You Should Know, I give you instead, a critique of Arthur Schopenhaur's aesthetic theory. One quick note, the text of this blog in its current form was originally submitted as a term paper for my 19th Century Philosophy class. So if you're the type to put term papers through an internet search Professor B, I just want to let you know my husband hasn't yet given me a definition for existence.

Arthur Schopenhauer was, among other things, a friend of the arts. He had a violent, pessimistic outlook on life, but felt that the arts allowed him a serene respite. To find serenity in art, he felt one needed to let go of their expectations, desires, and other aspects of the will. While this is an excellent way to observe the technical skill of a particular artist, the viewer misses the point of art. Several artistic movements in particular actually require the viewer to reach into themselves in order to truly appreciate the work. Although he could not have anticipated them, many contemporary art movements disprove Schopenhauer's assertions that one must let go of oneself to find aesthetic pleasure.

In Schopenhauer's defense, the major art movements that contradict and disprove his aesthetic theory – Cubism, Expressionism, and Abstract Expressionism – all developed well after his death in 1860. Cubism hit the scene in 1907; Expressionism in 1905, mostly in Germany; and Abstract Expressionism in the 1940s, again with a largely German influence.

Cubism was the most revolutionary art movement of the 20^th century, heralded by Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque. As part of their experiments to create a new sense of space, they would turn curves to sharp points, make sharp points into curves, and abstract everything. As we can see in Les Demoiselles D'Avignon (1907), the human forms have shed the photorealism of the past. When viewing this piece, one can not drift into peaceful serenity; there is too much to think about. The expressions of the women, their misshapen bodies, and in the cases of the figures on the right side, their seemingly masked faces. The space moves differently than in a traditional perspective painting, adding to the difficulty of a calm, inactive viewing.

Expressionism makes idleness in viewing even more difficult. Though earlier artists and pieces are considered Expressionist, it was recognized as its own movement around 1905, largely among German artists. Expressionism unloads vast amounts of raw emotion upon the viewer. Consider Edvard Munch's The Scream (1893). An idyllic lake, a rich red sky, a couple – perhaps lovers? – strolling on a bridge...and a ghoulish figure miming the anguish and misery of the world in one silent cry. His overly curvy form seem nearly ready to collapse, as if he's wavering under the pressure of emotion. This hardly inspires serenity. One can not help, when viewing The Scream, but feel strongly.

However Abstract Expressionism is by far the most difficult to view with a clear mind. It has, as its name implies, all the aspects of both Abstraction and Cubism, and Expressionism. While many of it's origins in putting the two movements together into

one come from the 1940s, the movement's most well known works come from the 1950s and early 1960s. This was when Jackson Pollock began throwing and dripping paint onto canvases, the merits of which are hotly debated in the art world. But consider a master of Abstract Expressionism, Hans Hofmann. His 1962 work Simplex Munditis ignites feeling within the viewer. The blocks of flat color seem to move in a weird space – it certainly is not perspective space of the Renaissance. The ratios of the complimentary colors also serve to set us ill as ease.

An argument can be made, however, that the work and movements Schopenhauer had available seem to support his aesthetic theory. Especially after his time in France, Schopenhauer would be very familiar with Gothic art, art of the Renaissance, and possibly even the up-and-coming Impressionism.

Gothic art dominated a large portion of art history, stretching from the 12^th century well into the 15^th. The architecture of the time was huge and could literally take hundreds of years to complete construction. The paintings were, with few exceptions, very religious, as seen in Madonna from the Annunciation (1340-1344). Gold and gold leaf were common elements added to represent the divine nature and divine glow of the subjects represented. Stylistically, the space is flat and awkward, but peaceful. One can see how Schopenhauer could gaze upon this Madonna with a clear mind and feel serene. However, this renders his theory inapplicable to the common person of his time. Because many people of Schopenhauer's time were still devoutly religious, a Gothic painting of a Madonna, or a saint, or Jesus would move them greatly.

Renaissance art seems like it would come the closest to Schopenhauer's aesthetic theory. The 14^th and 15^th centuries saw what would come to be known as Renaissance art rise along side Gothic art; by the end of the 15^th century, it replaced it completely. Perspective as we know it was developed during the Renaissance, giving paintings for the first time a true sense of space. Although it is true the church commissioned a lot of work, artists looked beyond the Bible for inspiration. Sandro Botticelli's The Birth of Venus (1482) depicts the mythological birth of the Roman goddess of love, Venus. As she rides in on her clamshell, she looks alive and more three dimensional than the Madonna of Figure 4. Surely anyone can spend hours looking upon her peacefully. Well, anyone except those uptight Victorians. Classical reference or no classical reference, Venus' nudity insulted their delicate Victorian sensibilities. It was during the 1800's that many pieces of art were censored – Michelangelo's David, for example, had a detachable fig leaf made for it. It's highly unlikely a person of Schopenhauer's time period could look at a random Renaissance painting, many of which contained nudity, without reacting.

This leaves Impressionism, a movement that was just getting its start near the end of Schopenhauer's life. Impressionists were the rebels of their time, going against many of the established canons of what art was supposed to look like. They painted outside, painted the mundane, and painted with deliberately visible brush strokes. They also introduced atmospheric perspective, the idea that the atmosphere can warp and play with light and perspective so that they are not exactly as one would expect. These aspects come out beautifully in Mary Cassatt's Children Playing on the Beach (1884). Two children sweetly playing in the sand...what could be more calming and serene than that? The fact is much Impressionism work does indeed support Schopenhauer's theory of aesthetics. Unfortunately, he probably did not see many, if any, Impressionist works. The movement was so hated by critics in its very beginnings, that museums and galleries refused to hang the work. It wasn't until a good twenty or thirty years after Schopenhauer's death that the movement took and became popular.

Schopenhauer took a lot of pleasure in the arts, but he clearly misunderstood them. While art can indeed be a good means to escape from the everyday world, viewing with your brain shut down is not the way to go about it. Many art movements, both before and after Schopenhauer's time disprove his aesthetic theory. Impressionism seems to be the exception proving the rule, rather than an actual area of support. And there are many other art movements not discussed that continue the trend of disproving Schopenhauer's aesthetics; Dadaism, Surrealism, right up through the contemporary Low Brow movements (see Max Ernst, Salvador Dali, and Ron English, respectively). By letting go of himself when viewing art pieces, Schopenhauer cheated himself out of the point of experiencing art.