When is art expression and when is it escapism?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I have been delving into both Nietzsche, Schopenhauer (only touched on it gonna look into him more) and Kant’s aesthetics of late. What I have returned with is a few ponderances on the matter of my own.

What I take to be the case is, like Nietzsche, art justifies existence and redeems past maladies etc. The redeeming qualities I feel come through the expression of the will to power which we all encompass. What depression is, I think, is the frustrated and unexpressed Will. Illness comes about from this frustrated will to power as it fails to get healthy expression through sublimation; it instead finds a release in maladaptive ways (for the individual) in the form of illness, malaise and general non wellbeing. I thought to my own experience of how expression has this ultimately cathartic quality. I am using art and expression synonymously, and take anything that expresses the will to power to be art and vice versa. So any creative force is thus art.

I got to thinking how listening to music incites such a cartharsis, but then, after listening to a piece of music I will often no longer feel this and my malaise soon returns. Thus I have concluded, that by using someone elses artistic creation for your own release you are in effect ‘piggy backing’ on their creative efforts and thus only getting your release through them. This is a form of escapism as, to sublimate your own will, you, instead of creating yourself, use someone elses representation, and when its over you are back where you began. Now I am not saying this is particularly clear cut, and listening to someone elses music can inspire you to create something yourself. Its just that that was my main finding, that times when I have found myself being expressive one way or another, then I found no ‘need’ for music and that I felt ‘self justified’ in my own overcomings. If however, I have been feeling the oppression of slave morality more strongly and have not been able to sublimate my will to power through some kind of expression in one activity or another (could be anyhting, reading, thai boxing, etc etc) then I would find myself seeking a release through someone elses art- a dvd, a computer game, music, whatever. This begs the question, is using other people’s art as an escape from your own failings to overcome ultimately just procrastination, as, insodoing, you hinder your own overcomings? I think that it is a quesiton of balance as I find it is a very usefull tool to be able to listen to someone elses composition when things are ‘getting on top’ as it refreshes my own soul and renews my vigour so I am ready and strengthened for my own overcomings. I think it is detrimental however, if one were to ONLY look to others for their release and in effect just leech their own will to power from others. This is what slave morality does in the main, always looking for the authorities to ‘fix them’, rather than ever having to think for themselves and fix their own problems. As with everyhting I suppose it to be a question of balance as to remember that when experiencing to someone elses creative composition it should only be so as to inspire and impress upon your own will to power to create anew itself.

Anyhow those are my main thoughts on that right now, as I say, its a fresh idea, a work in progress, and I hope my fellow scholars can help me cultivate this to some healthy fruition.

2

There are many avenues for creativity, and I don’t think anyone is good at them all. An engineer can design and build a super-ergonomic house which the artist can inhabit and draw strength from its aesthetics and functionality. The artist in turn can write a book, song or make a movie that provides the engineer to escape for a while and perhaps motivate him to follow other paths in his own creativity.

We are social animals and feed off each others strengths (and suffer each other’s weaknesses). The most successful of us are those who are able to incorporate what we love and are good at into our vocations. Others would denigrate them because they enjoy their work, which for them, for the most part, isn’t work at all, but fun. It’s just another example of misery, wanting company, foisting all the guilt they can muster from their negative worldview onto the objects of their envy.

Enjoying someone else’s creativity isn’t escapism, it is communication and sharing of the highest order. Escapism is shutting your mind off.

3

yes I see what you mean.

I think it CAn be escapism, if we just think of it as a way to avoid having to create ourselves. I think, like you say, that it is perfectly healthy and what life is all about, sharing, being social etc, provided we arent coming to the plate in a needy sense of wanting our cup to be filled by the other party in order that we forget and mask our own woes.

4

I think enjoying a piece of art and enjoying making a piece of art are two different things. A composer who writes a piece of music undoubtedly enjoys composing it (provided he’s not told what to do at each step), but his enjoyment is different than that of another person who will actually get to listen to it. The composer’s enjoyment is more in creating rather than appreciating it (the wording is a bit off here). So, in this way, I believe that a third person does not get to experience the artwork in the same way as the one who made it. I also think that a third person enjoys/appreciates it more because to him it often appears “more perfect” than to its creator (in my experience anyway), though the quality of enjoyment of the two can be argued.
The two people would, basically, hear the piece of music differently. When creator hears his piece of music he remembers each step of creation and the piece, overall, gives him a different impression. A third person hears only the final (perfect) product. I think it is possible for the creator to experience his own piece as if another’s, but I think this requires a willful manipulation of awareness (more relaxed or aloof awareness…or time). Strangely, it seems to me that the creation of art either has nothing to do with the other’s awareness (the artist does it for himself alone, without considering how it’s going to be accepted by others…or in other words, his intention is to experience it himself, as an artist would experience his own creation), or he does it for others’ consideration (ads and commissioned portraits come to mind) and adapts his will to that other end (a compromise, or creativity confined within [more] narrowly-set parameters).

5

I don’t like how escapism is considered prima facie a bad thing.

6

Not always true, some people spend all day writing songs that they can’t play themselves because of some illness or problem, and when they finally get to hear the music they’ve created, well, really.

7

can’t it be both?

8

I don’t understand the complexity of the question. Art is escapism when someone goes to it for that express purpose. Period.

9

Sounds about right pharrago.

10

Good point, it’s a complicated concept. For instance, it could mean seeking freedom from worry or freedom from responsibility. The difference is hair thin.

But if your talking appreciation of artistic expression, such as in my favorite art form, the movies, escapism is almost always negative. One of the most used criticisms in the review or discussion of a movie is that you need to turn your mind off at the door because the movie’s plot is full of holes or unrealistic, it’s humor is sophomoric, it’s all action with no substance, or my worst scenario, little else but gratuitous fear, violence and gore. IOW, there is no grist for thought or generation of an appreciation for the truths it may have contained. For me it’s a waste of time, but for others, it’s what they seek–entertainment without challenge, escapism.

On the other hand, it could also mean (although you seldom hear it used this way) that you are seeking escape from the world of “everybody knows”, into a refuge where Truth and courage take priority over expediency and social conformity. And the beauty of movies is that they can present artistic communication at the same time through several different forms such as music, dialogue, cinematography and choreography–all to seldom IMHO.

While I’m here, I might as well mention a few recent examples which I think have been philosophically satisfying: Charlie Wilson’s War, Rambo, The Brave one, and my favorite movie, artistically and philosophically, in years, Black Snake Moan–although it bombed at the box office, which for me shows that marketing can play a vital role in our world, or not.

11

RAMBO!? lol #-o

With escapism being nagative, I think it doesnt have to be so. Like if you sit down to meditate in a quiet room for half an hour you are ‘escaping’ the busy life outside just so you can recharge your batteries and be freshened to better deal with the busy world once you return. But at the same time I think the term escapism itself does have connotations of passive defeat in it, in that if you are trying to ‘escape’, its almost like you have become overwhelemed and so must retreat.

I think a better way to put it would be a short respite.

Escape presupposes defeat.

12

You mean an expression OF escapism (through art)? :-k

Hmm…kind of makes me think of Thomas Kinkade.

13

the best escapism was done by Houdini…

-Imp

14

and also the worst… R.I.P…

15

Look up Myanmar.

Similar to what I said.

Not necessarily so. It could be retreat, rejection of responsibility, or seeking refuge.

16

Here are a couple more thoughts Ive had on this.

I will just copy and paste the relvevant except of my msn convo:

[20:48] Hi Priest Geo: like i was saying earlier
[20:48] Hi Priest Geo: whther it is just procrastination
[20:48] Hi Priest Geo: if your creative efforts are spent on thing slike paintings
[20:49] Hi Priest Geo: hmm i dunno
[20:49] Hi Priest Geo: i think here
[20:49] Hi Priest Geo: the medium is in question
[20:49] Hi Priest Geo: and its relveance within the epoch
[20:50] Hi Priest Geo: and for myself for maximum power it would be best to chose the most popular medium, or the one which was going to last out regardles sof social trends
[20:50] Hi Priest Geo: it is just a question of where you choose to specialise
[20:50] Hi Priest Geo: for instance mike was saying about this guy who was into maths and how the formula was beautiful
[20:51] Hi Priest Geo: but noone else would deem it beaitful unless thye were too experts in the field or knowledgable enough to appreciate it
[20:54] BeLOWaBOVe: i’d say the first
[20:54] BeLOWaBOVe: although some people do it for a livng
[20:54] Hi Priest Geo: well if that were the case then why would an artist pick any ‘tried and tested medium’
[20:54] Hi Priest Geo: like an instrument is a sort of ‘conforming’ to a certain precept of noise
[20:55] Hi Priest Geo: rather than if a guy just decided to express himself by wearing a dildo on his head and a nighty wlaking down the street
[20:55] Hi Priest Geo: and thought that was a true expression
[20:55] Hi Priest Geo: although that example would entail aknowledgement for sure
[20:56] Hi Priest Geo: see even artists are using certain things tools, insturments, which conform to what we consider acceptable geenrally in a certian field
[20:56] Hi Priest Geo: its just what they do with them
[20:56] Hi Priest Geo: that is considered art
[20:57] Hi Priest Geo: so i think the ‘artist’ who creates pieces using these means necessarily wants recognition
[20:57] Hi Priest Geo: whereas say a buddhist realsies that it is within himself
[20:57] Hi Priest Geo: and so doesnt need to express it
[20:58] Hi Priest Geo: to anyone

I have quite a few queries ruminating in the depths right now, but it is going to take a little teasing out to bring them to the surface succinctly.

Mainly: Is art in its essence reactive, in that it requires a viewer to acknowledge the work for the artist to gain the cathartic release of the work. I know you will quickly say that the artist just plays with their craft for therapeautic means, regardless of anyone watching etc, however I would reply that this would only be the case once they have been acknowledged or already have confident in their field and know themselves to be good, so the cathartic effect is more like ‘Im hot and I know it’ (but only because they have already gained acceptance for other works and by practising their craft more they just reinstill this belief).

I point the reader to Kant’s ideas of dependant beauty, which states that how ‘beautiful’ a piece of is, is qualified by how well it adheres to the standard of its particular form. So the musical piece is beautiful only inso far as how well it adheres to the perfect standard of beauty within its particular field (music). Thus, the artist only feels the cathartic experience depending on how well they can acknowledge themselves to be ahering to the particular form of beauty.

I think I answered the first paragraph with the second one, in that it isnt that the artist needs the particular reaction form the audience for recognition (although some clearly do) but, rather, it is to do with how well they can say that they have adhered to the form of the particular instrument or tool they used to create the piece.

I realise this is quite a controversial claim, and Im not quite sure where I am going with it hence the stream of consciousness style of exposition given here, so lets see what we have in response to spur some good debate and perhaps get to the root of the matter at hand.

17

It’s true that an artistic expression can be used for its own sake (as meant to be used only by the artist), but a large part of the catharsis can come from “sharing” the artwork. You could say that by being successful in transferring his view/feeling onto the artwork in such a way as to enable the viewer to experience the same thing, the artist succeeds in achieving a certain degree of power over the viewer. So, say, instead of a long, drawn-out argument, the artist presents his artwork as his argument and convinces the viewer to see things from his point of view, either via persuasion or force (by force, I am thinking of provocative art that would elicit an involuntary feelings of disgust or anger from the viewer). The medium used might only be relevant to the artist in so far as it would have a desired influence on the observer (reaction). It could be argued that the goal of the artwork is to make an observer to see or feel the same things that the artist has.

I would have to disagree with this. An artist who keeps adhering to standards is not, at heart, a true artist (this is just my claim) because he is simply following the rules; and an artist who is willing to break the standards and fulfill his goal, is a true artist. In other words, an artist should not be a servant of the rules/guidelines, but make these guidelines serve him. If violin is your medium, perfect its use to get the most out of it so that it can serve you well, but don’t make it your aim to perfect the violin and stop at that. Take Vanessa Mae, for example, (I am not claiming she’s a virtuoso violinist, I am just using her as an example); she didn’t just stop at playing it over and over again in a traditional way, she pushed her limit of expression beyond the traditional set rules of expression(for violin).
When you approach an artwork, as a painting say, you already have pre-set notion of what a painting should be. This can be a hindrance, because the audience’s mind has already been conditioned to eliminate certain elements (a pre-set in the mind that says something such as “a painting cannot or should not be able to do this or that”), so the range of experience that can be gained from the painting is automatically limited. You are not supposed to treat a painting as a statute, for example, and walk 360 to experience it. Many (contemporary) artists are not willing to confine their expression to traditional mediums and look for their own mediums to work with. Here’s one example that I came across just last week.
reuters.com/news/video?video … EnoughNews

18

Excellent points Pandora, you have really helped open the box on this one.

I find it interesting you also note adverse reactions which the artist may evoke to illicit such ‘aesthetic responses’ (Brain wave, is an ‘aesthetic response’ just when someone becomes emotionally affected by a certain object? I would say yes). Here I think of GG Allin (google him if you feel sturdy enough for the challenge), who appeared to be the ultimate attention seeker. I imagine this type of person found that through doing depraved and grotesque acts it managed to get some sort of reaction, and thus, they found themselves able to influence in that manner. Before this they had no power and now they find a way to make people ‘react’ to what they do even though it may in the process be destroying themselves. It is adaptive to them in that they have more power than they did before, so, to them, it is worthwhile, not ideal by other’s standards, but it better to the said individual than being a nobody and picked on/ignored etc.

I recall a poignant remark by Robert Anton Wilson (one of my fav authors) that he made in Maybe Logic, where he said ‘All art is seduction’; I think that about sums it up here.

I maybe wasnt clear enough about the second point regarding Kant. I agree that the artist is always trying to ‘break the mould’ etc. I am not sure where this would fit into Kant’s schema. I think that maybe what you are describing would be the artist ‘spilling over’ into independant beauty; once they are able to release themselves of the shackles of the medium and break out into new territory. But then, what happens is the ‘new territory’ soon becomes old and hackneyed as others ‘get used’ to this standard and categorise it as the ‘next big thing’. The beauty would then become dependant once the aim was to adhere to this new form of beauty. Im not sure about what I said just there though, of its accuracy to Kant’s thesis, perhaps someone more versed than I in Kant’s aesthetics could clear it up.

Anyhow, it is our first point regarding art as seduction I find of most interest. The question now, then, is: Is art merely another rhetorical tool to gain sway. I would say yes. Of course. Following Nietzsche, I would say that Will to Power exists in us all, and to express it through art (creativity) is the height of expression. Now then we are going to have to ask what is art, and is one artform more ‘potent’ than another. Is anything ‘creative’ art, is one thing ‘more creative’ than another, and if so, why? I.e. is the politician who masterfully manipulates his audience as much of an artist as the painter for example; yes/no, why? My thoughts are that the higher one is able to express their Will to Power the better the expression of their Will to Power. Thus, the ‘authenticity’ of the particular ‘creative work’ is only judged by the measure of influence it has, how much power it is able to vent and express and subsequently influence, regardless of the medium. (I just realised this is going to need careful distinction, as, I would, upon that definition, have to assent to the Nazi’s (for instance) being some of the greatest artists to have lived, so this will need some more extrapolation)

19

Some action movie (just about any superhero movie this summer) is escapist, but the only unrealistic part of Rambo was his unbelievable skill with a bow and arrow. Stallone almost single handedly brought recognition to the longest running ultra-violent civil war still going on there almost unnoticed until the movie. He’s a national hero in Thailand.

20

I would say that real art is more than just a mere tool, as various forms of human interaction (I am thinking psychological manipulation, whether in public or in private sphere) can come under this description. In other words, if you go with this definition then just about any mode of human interaction can be considered art.

These are pretty difficult questions to tackle and they tend to lead to even more questions, rather than answers. :-k

At first glance, the answer seems simple enough: the more original an art form is the more creative it is. Art that resemble previous art in any way is not as creative as it relies on others’ ideas/forms of expression, which, by default, spare the successor of some of his creativity. However, I realize that this issue is a bit more nuanced as there are some, in my view, distinctions that could be drawn.
If you incorporate the will to power into artistic expression you could make an argument in which the traditional artistic expression is akin to the “art of politics” in that it manages to persuade the audience, or bend the audience’s will to that of artist’s. However, I believe that approaching art from this angle could lead to blurring of a distinction between what I would call “authentic” art and “hijacked” art.
An authentic art, in my view, represents an author’s true personal vision; while “hijacked” art is only used as means to some other end, in which the art is only used as a decoy of sorts (the key here is in how genuine the expression is).
A politician, for example, is more likely to put more weight on the usefulness of his artistic expression as means to achieve another goal (getting elected, for example), and his artistry is manipulated in such a way as to achieve this other goal. So, what the audience sees is not a politician’s own true expression (but an act). This is similar to what is happening with advertising art: its claims mimic genuine expression in order to achieve a completely unrelated goal (to get you to purchase a product). The audience believes it is a genuine expression (that the company really feels the way it says it does, for example) and buys the product, thus enabling the company to achieve its own goal; I believe that the company only cares for achieving its goal, and using “art” is just a means to that. To me, it is simply hijacking “art” (or artistic creativity, if you will) and using it for other practical purposes (via psychological tricks). Likewise, an artist who gives people what they want (in exchange for a price or recognition) is not a true artist because he is only catering to public taste.
If, however, the company embraced the whole process as an artistic expression, in which profit is not an end, by which the company judges its success or failure, but only used as a part of the whole picture/process (so you would not be doing it for the money, but rather the whole process is just one big (and genuine) philosophical statement), then I would say that it would be done in the spirit of true artistic expression. [Though, realistically, I have to say that this is unlikely as it undermines the whole economic purpose of a company’s existence.]

The example of Nazis that you gave is an interesting and an intriguing one as it begs the question as to whether an artist could use human lives/destinies as his chosen medium of artistic expression (or vision). If a politician actually believes what he says and does then I would be willing to say, in this context, that everything he does could be considered to be a true artistic expression (even if it might be considered “delusional” by some).

Although a bit off topic, this last point actually reminded me of a quote by Isaiah Berlin’s from his discussion on positive liberty (From Temple of Sarastro):