Analysis of the essay "What is art? " by Clutton Brock

Analysis of the essay “what is art “ by clutton brock

The essay “what is art” is taken form the volume “essays on life” by clutton brock and was first published in the form of an article in the ‘times literary’ supplement of january 1924.

“everyone now is thinking or talking about the nature of art and aesthetic experience” .clutton-brock begins his essay by stating the popular subject of discussion.

This subject ;the nature of art and of beauty is simultaneously confusing as well as thrilling .the problem about the nature of art and aesthetic sense is so confusing that it is hard to pin point what the actual problem really is. The only thing clear about it is that it is novel and new. Art, in the past was always considered inferior to what it reflected. Tolstoy in his book “what is art?” ,even though he himself saw the importance of art reduced art to an absurdity and valued it in terns of other things and not for it self. That art had not the right to exist for itself ,that it should be judged and valued not for itself but for other subsidary effects whether political ,social, or moral. Such a conception reduces art to nothing and this conception is the opposite of what art truly is.

Shelly in his work “defense of poetry” considered art to be judged by the ethical and intellectual benefits it showered upon mankind. Jonson spoke uncompromisingly on the nature of art. Dr jonson regretted the loss of a proposed epic by dryden because it led to the deprivation of the social and moral edification of mankind .what jonson meant was that art’s function was to socially improve and morally rectify the viewer ,reader or observor of the work of art. Clutton brock opposes this view and says on the contrary if a pieceof art is lost today its loss would be ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

However jonson thought as he did of art because he already had pre conceived otions about art and had not examined art carefully to see the nature of it. If jonson had done so ,he would have seen that art in truth is never valued for moral or ethical or cultural values but for itself. For Jonson himself would not have read poetry for the stated objects . had he doen so then it would have no longer been poetry.

Ever since art evolved man has valued art for itself ,without actually knowing it,for men still look for reasons as to why they should value art, even when one finally discovers that art is to be valued for itself ,one is ‘puzzled’ by the discovery.

The actual enjoyement of art comes form the experience of viewing art or experiencing art. This enjoyement should be spontaneous and felt in the moment. However most people try and experience art with a preconcieved notion as to how they should enjoy it. So in a way when people view art they do not feel the actual beauty of it but experience what they ‘think’ the beauty of art is . and in their minds there is always a conflict between what art really is and what they think it is. Paradoxically to enjoy art one must consciously ‘not think’ about art and if no effort is put one unconsciously begins to think about art.

The baffling and interesting problem about the nature of art is that each individual while viewing art expects art to have an effect on one’s behaviour . the human nature is such that every action is a response to some extrenal stimulus that is received.. and one believe each action to be in connection with the future.

Then there are those people who are ‘laborousily on their guard ‘ to try and not to value art for moral appeal yet they are still prone to praise art because it tells the truth about life. This concept is completely off the track or mark. People in calling art true are simply forgetting what they are experiencing and only thinking of the effect of a work of art on their future , other people believe they can learn form a work of artand again praise art for what is learnt . if something is indeed learnt form art it would be by chance and accident , for the primary purpose of art is not to teach but to move. One does not value art for the purpose of knowledge nor is one truly dissapointed when one learns nothing from it .

The essence of aesthetic experience is that it disconnects one form both the past and the future , it free the viewer ..for when art is observed one neither lives in ‘have beens or will be ‘s ‘ but rather in the now . even if this only for a moment one is free form all chains ,visible and invisible, thus art can be recognised by its power of giving freedom.

The forms art coems in is diverse .. it could deal with sorrow ,joy both or neither , it could present a solution or a problem , however the essence of art is that it free the individual.but as soon as the experience is over one’s thoughts are bound again and one reverts to one’s original way of thinking. Exactly due to this reason one again tends to be confused about the nature of art. What one is during the experience of art one was not before and will not be after. The artist himself would not be as he was while he was creating his work.. and thus himself falls into the trap of viewing art in terms of something else. He does not, he cannot reammeber that while he was creatin art he was free form all thing even from time.

There fore if indeed one wants to truly realize ..as clutton brock say s it should be percieved through the nature of art. For it there were to be a heaven it would , give one the life one has now but without past , the future ,without necessity , without fear, without anxiety . and this is what art gives unto man ..endless freedom contained in a single moment.

incnloic