Bosch and Freud - on Art and Madness

The rise of Renaissance started in the Low Countries – called Flanders.  Great artists appeared as the representatives of the late medieval new thinkers.  The status of artist rose from those considered as craftsman – “Mechanic artist” to a respectable free thinker, imaginative creator – “liberal Artist”.

The first of such representative was Hieronymus Bosch whose paintings of demonic figures in the guise of religious themes displayed his unbridled fantasies of the bestiality and humanity, the corruption of both human and animals, in the chaos of the world – reflecting the period in history where clashes between various continents and ideology seemed to have come to the central stage of civilization in the 15th century.  The Turkish Ottoman Empire took over the Byzantine in the 11th century and occupied S.E.Europe, the Black Death wiped out half of the European population…

Bosch, artist of the 15th century, marked a point of departure from the Dark Ages to the Age of Enlightenment.  As a northerner, with his typical dark imagination, enhanced by witch’s oil (a type of drug) he found his unique style of Gothic art – grotesque but realistic figures fornicating, gorging, binge drinking, defecating at the same time… The symbolism mingled with realistic figures created an exotic background evoking nightmarish scenes, which exist neither in “Paradise” nor in “hell”.

Freud said that man who is unhappy with reality tends to go on the path of “Regression” – hoping to reverse back to the childhood dreams in order to escape the reality and such a man becomes a neurotic individual… If he possesses artistic flair, he can transform this negative force into an ability of a genius to create great art works… 

Many people in the “Dark Ages” unhappy with the way of life resorted to heresy or hermitage or in silent self-reflection to seek answers in religious meditation.  Driven by fear or guilt, or feeling of insecurity, those who would be misfits in normal social life went on pilgrimage or retreated to deep forest in remote mountains.  Those who took refuge in austere monasteries on the top of Montserrat (Franco-Spanish border), away from the rest of the world, found solace in a life of poverty, and self-punishment.  But did they find “Redemption”?

Related post:

     L'Art, est-il la representation de la folie?

What is beauty ?



On the subject of beauty, one immediately refers to the usual clichés: “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” or “Beauty is only skin-deep.” In recent years, beauty has become a hugely lucrative industry. Every day, we are bombarded by adverts selling hair shampoos and anti-aging creams with images of sexagenarian or even octogenarian celebrities who reclaim their lost youth with their perfect skin, glossy hair, and super-trimmed figure. Sitting by swimming pools, long hair bouncing over their shoulder, tanned legs shimmering under scorching sunlight, as if they never aged one day over 25. There is an endless supply of cosmetic beauty products, as well as botox, and plastic surgery for every man or woman, as long as they are willing to go under the knife to be sculptured like a Hollywood star. We should question why our culture defines beauty in terms of Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt.

Beauty is an illusion if judged at face value. Beauty is transient and ephemeral. What you saw as beautiful yesterday could be unattractive today. According to W C Fields, « Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder ». When intoxicated, your eyes play tricks with images, like the caterpillar changing to the butterfly; like sunsets fading on the horizon; or sand-castles washed away; or ice-sculptures melting.

In a machismo society, beauty can be classed as an asset or a curse for some women. Celebrated sculptor Auguste Rodin once said to American dancer Isadora Duncan, "if we have children, our offspring will have your beauty and my brain" - a remark at once flattering and insulting – does beauty therefore insinuate vacuity? Albeit every woman likes to be praised for her appearance, does she really want to be coined as the “dumb blonde”? Marilyn Monroe’s tragic ending exemplified the nefarious effect of beauty.

Where does the concept of beauty originate? Gabi thinks that human beings developed the ideal of beauty through the survival instinct. Animal attraction is based on natural desire for a healthy partner to produce better offspring. As a result, the perception of beauty started with looking for signs of good health and strong vitality. Undeniably beauty has a strong erotic connotation immersed in the realm of human senses.

If sex appeal means beauty, perhaps porn stars qualify as the most beautiful people? The judgement of beauty is subjective. If all beauty was standardised, the world would be deprived of individuality and personality. There is vulgar beauty as there is classic beauty. Vulgarity equates beauty with basic sex appeal, chintzy garish colours, ostentatious displays of wealth, or anything that has immediate appeal to our five senses. The opposite of vulgarity is the sublime, which has often been mistakenly termed as “high-brow”. In contrast to pornography which aims at arousing sexual desires, Greco-Roman statues of gods and goddesses often represent sublime human forms evocative of spiritual beauty.

“Artist is the creator of beautiful things”, said Oscar Wilde. But not all artists agree with this. In Roger Fry’s opinion, “art is a significant deformity”. Picasso happily admitted that his art is “a lie that makes us realise the truth”. Andy Warhol blatantly claimed that “good art is good business” – in other words, “art” is something that sells for a price. Art in this age is no longer the “creation of beautiful things” as our ancestors believed. Rodin once declared “All those so-called ugly things in nature can become admirable in art.”

What you think is ugly could well be beautiful in the eye of some experts or artists. When you see something visually ugly, it might be intrinsically beautiful. Some beauty can be termed as « horrible beauty », or « grotesque beauty ». If a Christian martyr nailed on a crucifix is considered beautiful, why can’t a carcass of a cow in formaldehyde be equally admirable? With art, the bidding process starts in the auction rooms; the price of art has thus altered the value of beauty.

L'Art, est-il la représentation de la folie?

Posted on behalf of Céline :



La Grotte de Lascaux, France, ca.15,000 BC

Depuis au moins l’antiquité, la philosophie s‘interroge sur l’art: il est donc bien naturel que notre Café Philo de Samedi dernier débatte sur l’une des innombrables questions qui se pose: l’art est-il la représentation de la folie?  

L’art a effectivement évolué depuis ses premières expressions sur les murs des grottes habitées par les hommes préhistoriques. En effet, jusqu'au siècle des Lumières, il n’y a pas de véritable différence entre l’artiste et l’artisan : le travail est basé sur la notion de beau en tant que représentation de la réalité, ainsi que les connaissances techniques démontrées. Alors que l’art servait essentiellement aux représentations religieuses, (une arme intemporelle pour défier la mort, même s’il avait occasionnellement une fonction publique ou sociale illustrée par la commande de livres d’heures ou de portraits), la renaissance place l’homme au centre des préoccupations artistiques et fait ainsi appel a nos sens et nos émotions : c’est la séparation rationnel (« logos ») et du sensible. Au XXe siécle, l’artiste remet en cause le rapport entre beauté et art, et n’hésite pas à désacraliser ce dernier en lui donnant une fonction de «révélation libératrice », comme le déclare René Magritte. 

Livre d'Heures, 1442

Il est vrai qu’il est difficile de définir l’art : est-t-il contextuel et ne se révèle en tant qu’art dans une galerie dûment exposée (Shéhérazade nous donnait l’exemple de la Joconde, exposée au Louvre, et qui serait peut-être méconnue internationalement si elle était exposée au fin fond le la campagne italienne), ou bien est-ce qu’il « n’a que faire des proclamations et s’accompli dans le silence » (Marcel Proust) ? L’art doit-il avoir une fonction autre que celle d’exprimer ses émotions personnelles, et créer un lien entre l’auteur et le spectateur ? N’a-t-on pas néanmoins vu certains artistes repousser les frontières du réel à travers leurs arts jusqu'à en sombrer dans la folie, tels Schuman ou encore Van Gogh ? 



Van Gogh 1889





Les formes les plus contemporaines de l’art explorent différentes théories, en se servant de l’art comme moyen de thérapie : écriture, peinture, composition musicale, ou encore création de concepts, la « définition» de l’art est ainsi très diversifiée. Mais la plus grande folie a laquelle succomber ne demeure t-elle pas le risque d’exagérer l’utilisation de art, et de l’exploiter commercialement au point de voir s’établir comme le déclare Andy Warhol « l’art des affaires qui succède a l’art. […] »

See also:
Bosch and Freud - on Art and Madness

Aesthetics (philosophy of art) overview

Posted on behalf of Peter:

Aesthetics is normally seen as the province of the ‘fine arts’ i.e. painting, poetry, dance, music, drama and sculpture. In the twentieth century, art photography and film were added. This blog entry lists some of the definitions that have been put forward to explain what makes something ‘art’, and a sample problem for each definition when used in isolation. (Note: these ideas occur in many works on aesthetics, but a good source is ‘Philosophy of Art’, by Noel Carroll, used as reference here).

1. Art as Representation (Imitation).
Dating from the time of Plato and Aristotle, this view states that art is representation of life. (Problem: some things now regarded as art are clearly not representational e.g. abstract painting).

2. Art as Expression of Experience.
This view became popular during the Romantic period: it’s not so much reality that is important, rather the artist’s response to it. (Problem: just because something expresses feelings, however sincerely, does not make it good art).

3. Art as Significant Form.
This view states all art must have a significant form i.e. combination of lines, colours, space etc. (Problem: how does one distinguish between significant and insignificant form).

4. Art as provider of Aesthetic Experience.
This view states there is a category of emotional response specific to works of art. (Problem: is there an aesthetic response separate from an ordinary emotional response, appreciation of pattern etc).

5. Art as Family Resemblance.
This view states that something is art if it resembles artefacts that are already regarded as works of art. (Problem: how does it cope with things that break the mould of what has gone before).

6. Art as Institution.
This view states that if a member of the art world (critics, curators, gallery owners etc.) defines something as art, then it is art. (Problem: what criteria make you eligible to speak for the art world).

7. Art as Historical Definition.
This view states that something is art only if the intention of the artist was to exemplify an acknowledged historical, artistic perspective e.g. representation, expression. (Problem: something currently defined as art may not have had an artistic intention behind it when it was created e.g. tribal artefacts now regarded as art).

8. Art as Historical Narrative.
This view states that something is a work of art if it can be seen as part of a logical progression in a historical process (narrative) i.e. the evolution of the art context. (Problem: something currently defined as art may not have been part of an acknowledged evolution in artistic thinking e.g. tribal artefacts now regarded as art).