Gianni Zucchet
18 November 2021
Contemporary Role of Art
The role that art ought to play in society varies from one philosopher to the next, however, in all cases, art should have an overall positive impact on society, without the creator specifically seeking this impact; for that would make it inorganic. Whereby advancing society by creating progressive art, political art to further a necessary agenda (i.e. efforts to counter climate change), or art which brings about a transformative experience for the individual, the effect of contemporary art upon society should seek to be objectively good. On the idea of elevating society, Kant argues: “Fine art.. Is a way of presenting that is purposive on its own and that furthers, even though without a purpose, the culture of our mental powers to facilitate social communication” (Kant, 16). Thus, if fine art facilitates social communication, then society will be elevated by its virtue, as we can effortlessly speak to each other about a wide range of new topics. Moreover, Kant also argues that, “the purposiveness in its form must seem as free from all constraints of chosen rules as if it were a product of mere nature.” (Kant, 16), which means that although the artist obviously has intention when they create the work, it must seem not as a completely deliberate attempt to gain a certain reaction from it, but rather, their creation must have its roots in fundamental ideas that one can easily see in nature. This is important because inorganic art, at least contemporarily, tends to intentionally and specifically virtue signal popular political movements, not as a means to further social conversation, but as a means to increase the available demographic by being “politically correct”.
Nietzsche argues that, “man has an invincible inclination to allow himself to be deceived and is, as it were, enchanted with happiness when the rhapsodist tells him epic fables” (Nietzsche, 71), and indeed, we are readily and happily fooled by the modern television show which depicts progressive values, diversity in its cast, and maybe a neo-pronoun or two; but we, just as easily, bat our eyes when the conglomerate company backing the show is exposed for supporting the opposite values in reality. That being said, I’m not against being deceived by art, as long as it is organic, not a purposive display of virtues which appear too good to be true; because it so often is. Nietzsche goes on to say, “so long as it is able to deceive without injuring” (Nietzsche, 71). Thus, art will undoubtedly create a deceitful idea in our minds, and yet, it must do so without causing harm to either the individual or society itself. Art should be organic, because it is inorganic art which causes harm to society, by presenting a falsehood of ideas, which appeal only to our most basic senses of morality, while -often- underhandedly championing the opposing cause. Nietzsche essentially argues that art should be a freeing experience, one that unshackles the mind from our unending a priori values (the metaphor), and gives us true insight on the nature of reality. For Nietzsche, art can be a justification for life as a whole, and we should seek it in order to break away from the “metaphors” that have been constructed in our minds through language and science.
On the other hand, Heidegger argues that “The more solitarily the work, fixed in the figure, stands on its own and the more cleanly it seems to cut all ties to human beings, the more simply does the thrust come into the open” (Heidegger 110). Essentially, art should possess a thing-like quality, where the work simply is, it doesn’t need society to validate it, or have specific roots in humanity. This is precisely where contemporary art goes wrong, it is praised and popularized for its factors of relatability, its political correctness, and the incessant virtue signaling it employs. That being said, I don’t completely agree with Heidegger, because -not all, but some - art should be political, in order to garner attention to certain causes or issues in society; this kind of art, according to Heidegger, would likely not stand on its own, but it would serve a purpose for the present society. In addition, Heidegger argues that “The essence of art is poetry. The essence of poetry, in turn, is the founding of truth” (Heidegger, 114), which is something that our society needs to acknowledge. Art should be poetic, it should be dramatic, thoughtful, it should invoke our inner-poets, and make us consider, whether rationally or sensibly, the truth that is presented to us. Contemporary art should be less descriptive and more poetic, our society has the inherent flaw of “needing to know”, the phenomenon of over-interpretation, due to the lack of poetry and the prevalence of highly descriptive art. We are so unfulfilled by the poetry-less content, that we feel forced to read the biography of its creator, in order to draw some symbolism out of the depthless film or novel, “Oh it says here that he spent some time in Argentina and that’s why his caged bird was blue, that is so deep”, when there is a necessity to know more about a work of art, not out of interest, but as a means to justify the time we committed to inspecting it, there is a problem.
It naturally follows that my critical view of film goes hand in hand with Benjamin, this is however, not the case. His view on film is accurate for its era, however, the criticism hardly applies to the massive advances in contemporary filmmaking. He argues sternly against the camera that is used for filming, “The camera… need not respect the performance as an integral whole” (Benjamin, 436) and “ The audience’s identification with the actor is really an identification with the camera” (Benjamin, 437). I try to imagine what film production in the early 20th century looks like, and through this lens, I can understand his argument. If it were the case in modern times that people identify with the camera as opposed to the director or the actor, I would argue that it is a grave issue, and it could mean that filmmaking itself is a poor medium of artistic expression. However, as far as the formal qualities of film are concerned, I think directors do excellent work, they employ unique styles to differentiate themselves from their peers, and there are some superb and poetic screenplays out there. Benjamin posits that art is enveloped in an “aura” which imbues it with a sublime quality that gives it value, however, he argues that in film, due to the camera, the actor is lacking in aura. It is the quality of aura that imbues the spectator with awe and allows them to have an aesthetic experience, however, if it is the case that film has no aura, and the actor has no aura, then it would be impossible to tell the difference between a good and a bad actor; in fact, the oscars could not exist. The content in contemporary television is far too politicized, and I think it is detrimental to the artistic aspects they present, however, current actors, and formal elements, are at their peak.
Similar to Heidegger’s idea of art standing on its own, separated from humanity, Marcuse argues: “the radical qualities of art… are grounded precisely in the dimensions where art transcends its social determination and emancipates itself from the given universe of discourse.” (Marcuse, 236). In comparison to Heidegger though, Marcuse argues that art itself is rooted in a separate dimension, rather than saying good art should belong in its own state of being. My issue with Marcuse is the idea that art “emancipates itself from the given universe of discourse” because if we no longer have discourse in regard to art, then we are invalidating Kant’s idea that art should create and elevate discourse; which is an idea I subscribe to. Moreover, Marcuse defines a work of art as “authentic or true not by virtue of its content (i.e., the “correct” representation of social conditions), nor by its “pure” form, but by the content having become form.” (Marcuse, 237). Thus, it is not necessary to most accurately depict the society with art, content becomes form when it is able to “re-present reality while accusing it” (Marcuse, 237), this is a good guideline for contemporary art to follow. Although I’m not sure if lessening the importance of being “correct” in the representation of social conditions is a great idea, I think when politics are concerned, art should be as blunt and honest with mirroring reality; otherwise we depict untrue conditions, and as Nietzsche says, we might be deceived and believe the falsehood to be reality. Such is the issue that could arise out of the inorganic, forced diversity in programs created by multinational companies. They don’t care about diversity, they’re just safeguarding themselves from being canceled by popular culture.
Works Cited
Cazeaux, Clive. The Continental Aesthetics Reader. Routledge, 2011.
Kearney, Richard, and David Rasmussen. Continental Aesthetics: Romanticism to Postmodernism: An Anthology. Blackwell, 2008.