【Original】Essay "The Essence of Art" Renzhongma - Chen Xuanyan

The essence of art

If the definition with physical (or factual) reference is called metaphysical, then art is undoubtedly metaphysical. Definitions here are often impossible to implement, and in fact never really. Historically, the essence of the discussion of the origin of art is to transform the metaphysical to the metaphysical through the definition of art. Concepts, nothing more than "symbolic" forms, approach "science" from "unscientific", and this scientific measure has never been based only on the gap between "like" and "non-image" by popular emotions, making irrational human divisions.

Spencer pointed out that art and aesthetics themselves are "pastimes" peculiar to humans as higher animals. Compared with chai rice oil and salt, it is clear that this kind of elegant pastime can only be defined as "game". However, this is only a feature of artistic activity, only to distinguish relatively inferior forms of labor. Therefore, in comparison, Plekhanov's understanding of "labor before art" is more accurate and lively. Suppose that art, as a part of human life, does not act as an equally energy-consuming production of labor, what can it be? It must be labor first and game second.

The game theory does not point directly to the origin, let alone the essence, but the "color of the game" still looks so vivid, because labor does not need beauty, and art and related aesthetic activities are closely related to beauty. This interesting choice seems more convincing than the loss of energy. Undoubtedly, whether as labor, or as games, as appendages of human social life, artistic activities consume man's excess energy. But if people think of life itself as a game, then such a definition of matryoshka dolls loses its usefulness. At this time, the concept of the game has changed the trick, not to seek fun, but to experience the bittersweet emotion. Experiences can be extreme or neutral, or directionless, non-selective, aimless, because life operates as a passive thing. This theory of artistic origin, then, is the same as the universal theory of creation, which is equivalent to nonsense—that life came into the world and was born with the mission of creation, even to destroy even the ugliest of these creations.

Therefore, when discussing the origin of art, the writer or scholar only tries to define the art in his heart with a rash or partial attitude. This definition is mostly ineffective— it is only a representation of one aspect of the character of things. The worldview and values in it are only the more romantic imaginations in the minds of the definers. This imaginary theory of origin, as well as Aldusser's pluralistic determinism: any cultural phenomenon arises for a variety of complex causes, not a simple one. This is also a "nonsense philosophy". It simply provides a similar excuse, such as "the number of gods in pantheism is innumerable," to discuss the impossibility of tracing the origins of art. Isn't that in itself the best proof of conjecture?

In contrast, Edward Taylor seems to have found the truth. As a tome of cultural development of mythology, religion, language, art, and customs, Primitive Culture is placed in an extremely important, perhaps even correct position, of witchcraft. If it is only as an artistic origin, I think this kind of metaphysical conclusion is enough. But the purpose of our discussion of this origin is not really to find out the source of art—the impulse that gave rise to the first act of art. What we want to know is deeper: the five-sixths beneath the ice floes. This is obviously not a prayer or sacrifice made by the subconscious mind in fear of ghosts and gods. This is not a study of the psychological underclass, nor does Jung's collective unconscious apply here. That universal origin of civilization does not apply to art alone. Neither survival nor labor has anything to do with art, although its first function would involve the training of survival. Even as the German scholar Gurus put it, games are not without practical utilitarianism, just as cats prepare for future predation when they play with line balls. But it was only to break Spencer's noble view of his "game theory" as purely unproductive, which had nothing to do with art in itself.

So what is the essence of art? It seems that the theory of origin does not help much. It seems that the closest is the imitation of Democritus and Aristotle, and the representation of Croce, or the reproduction of Tolstoy. Imitation is the way of artistic performance, and expression and reproduction are processes, but what do they have in common? symbol. In my opinion, this is a common grasp of the concrete behavior of art, and it is also the core connotation interpretation of the metaphysical abstract concept of art. To imitate both the theory and the representation (reproduction), the symbol is the straight bridge.

In fact, imitation theory also has a certain universality. In terms of human life, most labor behavior and scientific research are also based on imitations of nature or life. Nature, in itself, is a game platform, while humans are the subjects (and samples) of data collection. Humans learn and grow themselves by acquiring experience based on various natural attributes and data. It's all a gift from nature. From capturing sunlight to replenishing water, from using beasts to imitating birds, these are the life itself that uses the laws of nature to obtain practical benefits, and is the process of self-organization and evolution of civilization by learning and replicating nature. Everything is based on imitation. Just as we cannot regard ploughing the plough and ploughing the soil and the wings of the water wheel as art, we cannot replace the essence of the development of civilization with the essence of art. Logically, the concept of civilization completely covers art, and this lowest commonality is bound to be presented in art. Therefore, imitation must be an important feature of art, and without imitation, art cannot be produced. In the same way, without imitation, there is no labor production. The difference between the two is that the scope and object of imitation are different.

Yes, art does not have to imitate the function of things. It simply reconstructs an image, like poetry, giving a figurative identity to the inner mind. Tolstoy's understanding of art, though sensual, was extremely close to the truth. He said: "In order to convey to others the feelings that one has experienced, one reawakens them in one's own mind and expresses them with some external sign... This is the origin of art. Unlike Croce, he did not say that the essence of art is intuition. Croce's use of abstraction to explain abstraction is more confusing. What is intuition? Is it to reconstruct the image? Is its source really emotional? What is the intuitive mental process, and how does it involve the expression of emotion? He didn't make it clear. Like a mess, it is impossible for people to unravel it with superb understanding.

So, I say that the essence of art is symbolism, which is based on the extraction of the comprehensive commonality of imitating images and expressing emotions. The way of symbolism is to obtain a new image from the mental process, to replace the original image of reality, and the process of making this image is through imitation. Emotions and thoughts, as the underlying and ultimate expressions, are presented as ends. A realist statue or painting, reproducing the real is not the purpose, symbolizing this "real" and giving people the emotion is the true meaning and value of this work of art. Just as the partial reality, venus of the broken arm, and the reality of restoring it into the whole, are also used as symbols of emotion, the meaning of the two is not the difference between the partial and the complete. Truth itself contains defects, not necessarily things can only be complete to express emotions, so reproducing the truth does not mean reproducing the complete, even as an artistic symbol, the emotion itself is incomplete, and it is impossible to be complete. However, this abstract statement may lead to the misunderstanding that it is not that beauty has lost anything from that wholeness, but that this in itself is a new and complete "mutilated beauty." Naturally, the same is true as feeling the emotion of this beauty.

2022.2.4 At home in Phoenix New Village