AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
SIR: David Oderberg certainly makes it clear (January-February 2004) why artists might warm to a scholastic aesthetics that speaks unashamedly of the splendour of form. But does his condemnation of abstract art follow from his premises? The medieval cathedrals that he so admires are not representational art, nor is most music, and there is no good reason why painting should be forced to picture something, just because it is on a surface. The scholastic Etienne Gilson's Painting and Reality, one of the few readable books on aesthetics of the twentieth century, drew the opposite conclusion, that representational painting was a mistake.
That may be going to far--even Gilson back-pedalled, when it came time to explain why it was all right for his wife to be a religious artist--but it seems a more natural conclusion for scholastic aesthetics, with its concentration on pure form, than an opposition to the abstract.
James Franklin,
Kensington, NSW.
David S. Oderberg replies:
SIR: Jim Franklin questions whether the scholastic theory of aesthetics entails a general opposition to abstract art. I would make several points in response. First, it is a category mistake to use architecture and music as counterexamples: these are not art forms of which it makes any more sense to say that they are abstract than concrete. I concentrated on the purely visual arts in my article, to which my strictures against the abstract apply (which is not to say I condemn abstract art holus bolus, only in the way outlined in the article). The criteria for musical and architectural aesthetics are somewhat different from those for the visual and from each other, though there is ...