OF ART, PHILOSOPHY AND BEHAVIOR
Art. I could now ask in the good old philosopher's manner: yes, what is art? Does art even exist? Can I not only understand it if I accept that there are different types of art and that these will always be connected to a concrete work of art, a picture, a song or even a play in which art makes itself tangible to us as humans.
by Pascal Deniz Degen
by Pascal Deniz Degen
But that would be nonsense! Why? Because I don't want to write for an academic audience in which words are used to impress others in one's own circle. Look at me, listen to me, I know how to talk! At first you might be happy, especially if you don't come from this academic class yourself, you finally belong, you understand something now and thus you also understand exactly who doesn't belong, oh you stupid little ignorant people, you still have to learn.
What a foolish attitude. Talk about how to improve the world, what you should, may or must do, but talk in such a way that the people it concerns don't even understand that it's actually about them, and you end up wondering why the people you want to help don't listen to you, who is the simpleton here?
What does this have to do with art, you might ask. I apologize, I've strayed from the actual topic. Although, maybe philosophy and art aren't very different. Both have a problem with elitist behavior, people who think they know exactly what's going on and know better than everyone else. Who actually has the upper hand, the one who consumes the art or the one who creates it, or maybe the one who evaluates it as a real critic?
Please don't get me wrong, as someone who creates art myself or wants to create it, I definitely see a justification for the artist's opinion to play a role. In the same way, I see a certain legitimacy for the critic who brings expertise to the table, but the "normal citizen" also has a right to understand the work of art as he or she understands it. For example, when I read a book like Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky, I don't want to know what Dostoyevsky actually wanted to tell me, and I don't want to have to buy a second book in which someone else is trying to force an interpretation on me. I want to use my own head, have my own interpretation, and know what this book will do for me in my life.
So I am a great advocate of a more democratic concept of art, even if I am aware of the downsides. I also find it very unpleasant if any old person were to pretend to be an art expert, but let's consider the alternative. What is better if we exclude a huge group of people from participating in a discussion from the outset because we think they are too stupid, or if we fundamentally open up the space and discuss it with "the Others". This does not mean, by the way, that an artist on stage has to let his audience dictate everything to him and only ever has to satisfy the needs of that audience. It is mutual, both the artist and the audience have rights AND responsibilities. As the saying goes: nowadays not everything is art (even if it may sometimes seem that way) but there is art for everyone.
And now? What does that mean? What should this text culminate in?
Quite simply, in the request to leave art alone so that it can develop. It will never be appropriate to ask "What is art allowed to do?" but only "How is art allowed to do?"
To go back to the point, it makes no sense to ask "Can art/philosophy be academic?" Because the answer is clear: yes, of course, it must be! It makes much more sense to ask, "Can art/philosophy remain academic?" Here the answer is clearly no!
The context is as follows: If we want important information to reach a broad audience, then we must not shy away from perhaps saying the wrong things.
Let me give you an example: An important concept in philosophy for me is freedom. What is the difference between the following sentences:
"Your own freedom ends where it affects the freedom of others."
"If I insult someone by calling them a son of a bitch, I shouldn't be surprised if I get a slap afterwards."
Exactly, there is no difference, the content is identical, both sentences say the same thing! But the form is different! The first sentence elevates itself and is intended to show how clever you are.
i and it makes sense, it is right and it is important, within a certain framework. The second sentence shows what the first could mean if you apply it in a brutal way, so within a certain framework it also makes sense. Is one of the two better? I don't know.
But this is where art comes in, if we see the two sentences as extreme points that are supposed to embody a certain content, art can mediate bringing this content into the world. It can use one of the two extremes, or neither of them, maybe something in between, or maybe it finds something that is even more extreme. In the end, however, one thing is important: that it lives itself out, develops and tries itself out, and it cannot do that if it is restricted from the start. A stable society also needs good art.
Why not trust art more, maybe it may sound absurd or pathetic, but who has art ever killed?
If, unlike me, you come to the conclusion that art has already accomplished this, then please think about whether these victims are in proportion to those who have died through war, weapons, hatred and incitement.
Free (!) art is the best alternative!
11/21/2024
Pascal Deniz Degen is 25 years old and a true Berliner. In his hometown, he successfully completed his bachelor's degree in history and philosophy. His great passion for philosophy led him to Vienna, where he is currently completing his master's degree. His self-proclaimed goal is to free philosophy from the clutches of academia and make it accessible to society again.
What a foolish attitude. Talk about how to improve the world, what you should, may or must do, but talk in such a way that the people it concerns don't even understand that it's actually about them, and you end up wondering why the people you want to help don't listen to you, who is the simpleton here?
What does this have to do with art, you might ask. I apologize, I've strayed from the actual topic. Although, maybe philosophy and art aren't very different. Both have a problem with elitist behavior, people who think they know exactly what's going on and know better than everyone else. Who actually has the upper hand, the one who consumes the art or the one who creates it, or maybe the one who evaluates it as a real critic?
Please don't get me wrong, as someone who creates art myself or wants to create it, I definitely see a justification for the artist's opinion to play a role. In the same way, I see a certain legitimacy for the critic who brings expertise to the table, but the "normal citizen" also has a right to understand the work of art as he or she understands it. For example, when I read a book like Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky, I don't want to know what Dostoyevsky actually wanted to tell me, and I don't want to have to buy a second book in which someone else is trying to force an interpretation on me. I want to use my own head, have my own interpretation, and know what this book will do for me in my life.
So I am a great advocate of a more democratic concept of art, even if I am aware of the downsides. I also find it very unpleasant if any old person were to pretend to be an art expert, but let's consider the alternative. What is better if we exclude a huge group of people from participating in a discussion from the outset because we think they are too stupid, or if we fundamentally open up the space and discuss it with "the Others". This does not mean, by the way, that an artist on stage has to let his audience dictate everything to him and only ever has to satisfy the needs of that audience. It is mutual, both the artist and the audience have rights AND responsibilities. As the saying goes: nowadays not everything is art (even if it may sometimes seem that way) but there is art for everyone.
And now? What does that mean? What should this text culminate in?
Quite simply, in the request to leave art alone so that it can develop. It will never be appropriate to ask "What is art allowed to do?" but only "How is art allowed to do?"
To go back to the point, it makes no sense to ask "Can art/philosophy be academic?" Because the answer is clear: yes, of course, it must be! It makes much more sense to ask, "Can art/philosophy remain academic?" Here the answer is clearly no!
The context is as follows: If we want important information to reach a broad audience, then we must not shy away from perhaps saying the wrong things.
Let me give you an example: An important concept in philosophy for me is freedom. What is the difference between the following sentences:
"Your own freedom ends where it affects the freedom of others."
"If I insult someone by calling them a son of a bitch, I shouldn't be surprised if I get a slap afterwards."
Exactly, there is no difference, the content is identical, both sentences say the same thing! But the form is different! The first sentence elevates itself and is intended to show how clever you are.
i and it makes sense, it is right and it is important, within a certain framework. The second sentence shows what the first could mean if you apply it in a brutal way, so within a certain framework it also makes sense. Is one of the two better? I don't know.
But this is where art comes in, if we see the two sentences as extreme points that are supposed to embody a certain content, art can mediate bringing this content into the world. It can use one of the two extremes, or neither of them, maybe something in between, or maybe it finds something that is even more extreme. In the end, however, one thing is important: that it lives itself out, develops and tries itself out, and it cannot do that if it is restricted from the start. A stable society also needs good art.
Why not trust art more, maybe it may sound absurd or pathetic, but who has art ever killed?
If, unlike me, you come to the conclusion that art has already accomplished this, then please think about whether these victims are in proportion to those who have died through war, weapons, hatred and incitement.
Free (!) art is the best alternative!
11/21/2024
Pascal Deniz Degen is 25 years old and a true Berliner. In his hometown, he successfully completed his bachelor's degree in history and philosophy. His great passion for philosophy led him to Vienna, where he is currently completing his master's degree. His self-proclaimed goal is to free philosophy from the clutches of academia and make it accessible to society again.
Write a comment