The
problem of art and morality is always highly debated. Many scholars had given opinions
regarding such a problem. Scholars like Plato and Ruskin had given different
conclusions. Plato had told that from their very nature art conflicted with
morality. But John Ruskin found that from their very nature art coincided with
morality. Plato condemned the art because they were immoral while Ruskin
praised them because they were superbly moral. Thus the different critics gave
different opinion regarding art and morality.
(1) Utility of Art:-
Art
is described as ‘The Beautiful’ a gift of God. There is a view that all the
fine art must be didactic to the people and that as their chief end. The
function of the artist was to teach nobility. Ruskin says that the results of
the arts are “desirable or admirable in themselves and for their own sake.” Art
is not useful to human beings like ‘house, lands, food and raiment’. All these
are our basic necessities. But Art is useful in other way. In higher sense it
is supremely useful. It enables man to fulfill his real function. It is to be
‘the witness of the glory of God and to advance that glory by his reasonable
obedience and resultant happiness.’
Art
useful to us in the pure sense is ‘whatever sets the glory of God more brightly
before us.’
(2) The feeling of Beauty:-
The
feeling of the beauty doesn’t depend on the senses, nor on the intellect. It
depends on the heart. The feeling of beauty is due to the sense of reverence,
gratitude and joyfulness that arises from recognition of the handiwork of God
in the objects of Nature. The same divine power operating in the artist
inspires him to blend his mental impressions into beautiful pictures or poems.
His imagination is secondary imagination from which he recreates a new world.
(3) Three Functions of Imagination:-
R.A.
Scott James has narrated three functions of imagination given by Ruskin.
(A) Imagination Associative:-
‘It
combines and by combination creates new forms’. Imagination is not be confused
with composition. Composition is merely grouping of certain ideas or images. It
is an art that can be taught. But the prophetic action of mind selects certain
ideas out of a mass. These ideas are ‘separately wrong but together shall be
right.’ The artist sees his picture from the first moment. He is able to correct
an imperfection by the addition of another imperfection; and then he creates in
the whole a thing of beauty.
(B) Imagination Contemplative:-
“Again,
it treats, or regards both the simple images and its own combinations in
peculiar ways.’ The Imagination Contemplative enables the mind to pass beyond
the simple ideas set before it, imparting to them quite another spiritual
significance.
(C) Imagination Penetrative:-
‘And
thirdly it penetrates analyses and reaches truths by no other faculty discoverable.
This Imagination Penetrative by intuition and intensity of gaze reaches ‘a more
essential truth than is seen on the surface thing.’
(4) The function of the Artist:-
The
artist is the servant of God whose mission is to go forth into the highways and
hedges and compel men to come in. He is a teacher. He is by nature a
pre-eminently ‘moral’ man. His function is to make men better.
It
is said that ‘beauty’ addresses itself to ‘moral part of us’. But there are two objections to such
statement. The first is ‘How morality can be found in the work of impious men
and how it is possible for such people to desire it or conceive it?’ ‘The other
objection is how does it that men in high state of moral culture are often
insensible to the influence of material beauty?
(5) Two kinds of experiences:-
To
solve above stated difficulty it is necessary to distinguish two kinds of
experience which may arise in the enjoyment of art.
(1) Aesthesis:-
It
is mere animal consciousness of the pleasantness. This is necessary to the
appreciation of beauty. It may be given to men of impious or unreflecting
spirit who may cultivate the perception of beauty on aesthetic principles and
so lose their hollowing power.
(2) Theoria:-
It
is the exulting, reverent and grateful perception of it. It accompanies the full
comprehension and contemplation of the Beautiful as a gift God.
(6) Some objections:-
According
to Ruskin this element of aesthetic perception is necessary in the activity of
art. It may be present in pious and impious both. So this element can not be
judged by moral standards. Plato also admitted this difficulty. For him it aroused out of a dualistic theory
in which a world of ‘Ideas’ was apart from a world of ‘sense’. But he found
that arts were mixed up in this delusive world of sense. There can be no
excellence in art without the inferior aesthetic excellence. Yet no excellence
is to count but that which derives from the separate sphere of the spiritual.
(7) How to judge the excellence of a work:-
The
excellence of a work is to be judged according to the goodness of the artist
made manifest in it. If it is so, it is quite possible that the judgement very according
to the ethical school to which the judge belongs. One may praise ‘goodness’
according to Epicurean or Stoics or Dr. Martineau or Harriet Beacher Stowe or
Dean Inge, or the Bishop of London. If it is so, the artistic judgement of an
Anglo catholic will be different from that of Evangelical and that of a Jew
from a Christian. But in reality a work of art should be pronounced excellence
as it glorifies the most commonplace of the virtue.
(8) Moral considerations:-
Moral
considerations can not fail to enter into the subject matter of every artist
who is handling life and character. A moral issue many characterize the theme
e.g. in Aedipus, Hamlet, Macbeth etc. characters will be lovable or the reverse
according to their morality. Morality is a principal issue in life as well as
literature.
This
life is life as the artist sees it.. His power of seeing determiners the
quality of his work. All aspects of his personality, including his morality
must determine the work which he produces. When we judge him, we judge
everything in his mental and moral make-up. Moral attributes can not be
irrelevant.
John
Galsworthy had said that no man can be declared great who is lacking in
goodness. E.g. Napoleon Banapart. This aspect can be applied to writers also.
E.g. Swift’s malice and meanness deprived his writings of the highest quality.
Everyone feels ‘gentleness’ in Shakespeare. But such conclusions are dangerous.
There are so many conflicting elements in the character of every individual.
(9) Character and Function of art:-
R.A.
Scott James has quoted passage from ‘Aratra Pentelic’ by Ruskin. It gives us
the idea regarding character and function of art. In it Ruskin has suggested
his ideas clearly.
Not only sculpture but all the other fine arts must be
for the people.
They must be didactic to the people and that as their
of chief end.
The great representative and imaginative arts like
drama and sculpture are to teach what is noble in past history and lovely in
existing human and organic life.
The test of right manner of execution in these arts,
is that they strike most emphatically the rank of popular minds to which they
are addressed.
The test of utmost fineness in execution in these arts
is that they make themselves to forgotten in what they represent.
R.A.
Scott James says that Ruskin has stated his ideas clearly. He doesn’t says
that the arts are ‘instructive;
that they incidentally teach;
That being noble. They can not fail to do us good.
He say something different
That their proper character is to be teaching
agencies. To instruct is their function.
(10) The real Function of Art:-
It
is the business of the scientist to ‘learn’, ‘know’ and ‘prove’. It is the
business of the rhetorician to ‘persuade’. It is the business of moralist to
‘teach’ and it is the business of the artist to ‘show’. Moralist says, ‘life
ought to be like that’. While artist says, ‘life looks like that’. Artist has
his intuition. He is satisfied with it, so he expresses it perfectly and
communicates it other. He sees his vision loves it and expresses it as he sees
it. He can not betray his art by handing it on in any other form.
Conclusion:-
The
function of moralist is to exhort and of artists is to exhibit. The aim of one
is to influence action. The aim of the other is to awake perception. The
satisfaction of the moralist in an action. The satisfaction of the artist in
the work of art is complete in itself. He knows no perfection beyond its own
perfection. Art can not be determined by the needs of action. It can be
determined by the imperative demands of vision. One can only see an image as it
is. If one attempts to make it didactic, one becomes treacherous to art.
So
there is clear distinction between two different modes of activity
No comments:
Post a Comment