6 Answers

  1. Philosophy initially opposed itself to art: art deals with the possible, and philosophy deals with the necessary, with being. For classical philosophy, art could only be a lower stage of knowledge, a model or formula for further intellectual acts that are already being performed on other grounds. At the same time, moral philosophy could well touch upon the issues of art, since it also represented moral knowledge as a kind of art. But in the course of the development of European culture, philosophy became increasingly close to art. First of all, a significant part of the arts (from the art of writing history to applied crafts) drifted from “authenticity” to “factuality”, and philosophy had to comprehend this new status of “fact”, which is not just given, but requires skillful verification. On the other hand, the realm of the artificial, intentional, and conditional was gradually revealed in man himself, which could not be described by means of traditional arts with their focus on patterns; this was reflected in the philosophy of Modern Times and reached its apotheosis in the psychological novel. In the era of the novel, philosophy becomes art and reflection on art: the project of Schelling and Hegel is no longer revealed as possible “art / artificial”, but as possible natural in the world of artificial objects, feelings and passions. Modern philosophy, while subjecting both the “natural” and the “artificial” to radical criticism, constantly redefines both the boundaries of art and the principles of attitude to art.

  2. Hans-Georg Gadamer once wrote that both philosophy and poetry (art) are the same peaks (they are on the same level), but there is a gap between them. An abyss, not an abyss, but they really go their separate ways.

    Art explicates the poetry (artistry) of life, and poetry, artistry is a moment of life itself. In this case, philosophers say that art (sound, picture, metaphor, etc.) is perceived by itself, “as such.”

    But if at this moment the motif of human “self-standing” (A. Pushkin) appears, or in other words, the work of “human self-standing” (existentialism) is done by means of art, then we have metaphysics (philosophy) in art itself.

    Philosophy and art intersect. So there are “metaphysical” writers (Marcel Proust, W. Faulkner, B. Pasternak), “metaphysical” artists (Kazimir Malevich), “metaphysical poets” (O. Mandelstam).

    About metaphysics (philosophy) for life in simple language, see my channel “Socratic conversations”.

  3. Philosophy and art are two different ways of understanding the world and a person's self-awareness. You can talk about them as fundamentally opposite tools, or as mutually complementary. Art is usually presented as a way of intuitive insight into the unknown with the embodiment of this intuition in an artistic image. Philosophy is characterized by a reliance on rational reflection and logic. For art, it is more typical to merge a person with the world, and for philosophy – a reflexive or critical position of a person towards the world.

    Art and philosophy do not exhaust the cultural landscape. The poles of this field can be considered religion and science, in which the responsibility for knowledge belongs to the supreme being or objective truth. However, there is a certain uncharted zone between these poles, in which a person tries to solve the most general questions that are beyond the control of other forms of knowledge, and in which he takes responsibility for these actions. It is in this zone that art and philosophy exist.

    It is impossible to draw a strict line between these ways of understanding a person's place in the world. Philosophy is also characterized by intuition, but only intellectual, while art is characterized by intuition of sensory perception. It cannot be said that logic is absolutely contraindicated in art. In its avant-garde forms, art becomes reflective and critical. And in general, throughout the history of culture, philosophy and art are not opponents, but allies. Many philosophical studies refer to works of art as illustrations. Art needs a philosophical understanding of both specific works and artistic methods. Art can be considered as the practice of philosophy, and philosophy as the theoretical apparatus of art.

    However, it also happened that some ideas looked like a way to belittle the importance of an ally. When, at the end of the 18th century, the philosopher Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten coined the word “aesthetics” (sensually perceived), it was with the noble aim of enabling “philosophers to penetrate also, not without great benefit, into those arts by which the lower cognitive faculties can be improved, sharpened and applied in a more favorable way for the benefit of the world.” Aesthetics was intended as a new tool of the mind, expanding its cognitive abilities, allowing it to rationally penetrate areas that are inaccessible to logic. Thus, art became something secondary, dependent on the older brother. And aesthetics itself, as a rule, occupies the last place among the philosophical hierarchy. When listing philosophical disciplines, first they name ontology and theory of knowledge, then logic, anthropology and ethics, and only then aesthetics. And in general, aesthetic problems from the point of view of, for example, an ontologist are secondary, so that he often refers them to marginal knowledge.

    This position has been actively criticized by the artist Joseph Kossuth since the 20th century, or rather in 1969. He says that there is an uncritical connection between art and aesthetics as a doctrine of beauty. Since aesthetics is designed to “deal with opinions about the perception of the world in general”, it is absolutely necessary to develop criteria for the quality of perception (beauty, taste). Accordingly, classical philosophy was called upon to discuss classical art: “In the past, one of the branches of the function of art was the value of the latter as a decoration (decoration). Therefore, any kind of philosophy that dealt with “beauty” (and, consequently, with taste) was inevitably forced to discuss art as well. This “habit” has led to the idea that there is a conceptual connection between art and aesthetics, which is not true.” That is, it turns out that some marginal part of philosophy is indirectly engaged in art. But Kossuth does not even criticize this position, but the whole of philosophy in general: “most modern philosophers actually differ very little from historians of philosophy. They are a kind of librarians of Truth. It seems that there is nothing more to say.” Kossuth's main idea is that philosophy is no longer able to perform a cognitive-methodological function (the function of cognition and the search for methods of cognition). This function is now intended to be performed by art.

    Nevertheless, art and philosophy have certainly been and will continue to be complementary tools for human self-awareness. This is especially evident at key moments when the cultural register changes. The transition from classical culture to modernism was accompanied by the fact that radical philosophical ideas and artistic images had a serious impact on social relations and politics. Modernist utopias first appeared in philosophy, literature and art, and only then there were several attempts to implement them in practice, which resulted in the creation of several totalitarian states with utopian metanarrative ideology. This has led to numerous tragedies. The sacrifices of the 20th century are colossal. In the post-war period, the register of culture changes — and the theme of repentance, redemption, and protection from utopian ideology becomes the most important. The literary genre of dystopia, since the mid-20th century, is extremely popular — it is an attempt to prevent, protect against a rash strategy.

    The interaction between art and philosophy is obvious at this point. The key ideas of postmodernism first appeared in the theory of architecture (Charles Jenks) and only then were ethically understood as a state of culture that defends itself against aggressive modernist ideologies (Jean-Francois Lyotard). “To save thinking after Auschwitz” is one of the noblest goals that art and philosophy worked out together.

    Now we find ourselves in a new unique situation, when literary and philosophical dystopias are becoming a textbook for the authorities. Just as the authorities once borrowed the utopian ideas of artists, now they are successfully borrowing dystopian artistic strategies to implement ridiculous ideas, self-defense and self-justification. Postmodernism, which was a humanistic culture of getting rid of modernist utopias, becomes a totalitarian power strategy in which ethics are the object of manipulation.

    Once again, art and philosophy have the floor. How to defend yourself this time? And then how to protect your idea from new theft?


  4. Philosophy and art are related in the following way.

    In the art itself, there are types: cinema, music, literature, visual arts, dance, and so on.

    In each type there are genres from high to low, that is, from the framework of classical traditional aesthetics to the bottom of vulgarism. Well, for example, in music-from masses and oratorios-to yard thug songs.

    Therefore, it is easy to understand that philosophy is usually associated with high genres of art, and low ones are not enough. For philosophy is a high subject, in contrast there is entertainment creativity.

    Also, it happens that the philosopher himself is very skilled in presenting philosophy and then it is pleasant to listen to him or read his books, and this is also an art and the very connection that you asked about.

  5. Philosophy allows you to reveal art from different angles…for different audiences, possibly different from the author's idea). With the help of philosophy, you can add cultural value to an object that is not really art.

  6. Both represent “going beyond the limits of possible experience” (in terms of classical philosophy), i.e. acts of creating a New reality. Science (fundamental) and religion (any religion) are also doing the same thing. All these four activities distinguish the human mind from the animal mind (there are no other differences). Animals are not able to “go beyond the limits of possible experience” in their mental activity. People are capable.

    Art is a kind of” exercise for the mind”, after practicing on which Humanity came up with a philosophy. That's the connection.

    And yes! Art is eternal.

Leave a Reply