Art, Literature and Philosophy tend to work hand in hand. While this communion was clearer in centuries before the advent of television, film, and radio, we still see this marriage today. Contemporary mass media is presented as an objective information source, but it finds it’s true desire is to serve up a new art and an audio/video literature. Art’s purpose and perspective has changed over the course of time with the ebb and flow of truth’s source. Initially, art’s desire was to present reality (Realism) both in history and present day. This reality was fixed in the understanding that we could know truth both historically and presently. The renaissance shook the foundations of truth and questioned all that can be questioned. Descartes, one of the central figures in the renaissance, considered his primary goal in life to question everything that could be questioned. People began to question what is really true and how we could attain knowledge. During this renaissance period the source of truth shifted from the church and God to science and reason. Once this source was tapped dry and seen as unable to hold unfallibly true, the Romantics searched for truth in intuition. They quickly learned that without a God or at least a basic metaphysical understanding, we have nothing on which to trust our intuition. Quickly truth became less of something to be sought, and more of something to be created. Art had previously desired to present some form of truth, but now sought to present perception. The realism of the renaissance died out and the mysticism of the Romantics was ushered into art. As mystic/romantic ideas dwindled, impressionism became the art form. Impressionism sought to present the artist’s impression of reality. The artist was not bound by what is real or true, but only what he/she perceived to be real or true. Again, the foundation of truth was shook by Kant’s and Hegel’s questioning of even perception. They asked if we could even have a right perception of reality. Sliding once again down the slippery slope of finding an anthropocentric truth, symbolism arose. Symbolism “combined the Romantic preoccupation with emotion with an emphasis on sensory perception” (Grasping For The Wind, Whitehead). Symbolism was focused on experience and perception. Drugs, alcohol and sex became useful tools to understanding. Why? Because reality was not found outside one’s self, but inside one’s self. We find similar tendencies of Impressionism to be true today. TV, radio, and film (today’s art and literature) is not focused as much upon truth in reality, but truth inside. We focus more one what we see to be true. We have seen a much quicker changing of the tides in our twentieth century. The 50’s focus on the good and the true had a sense of realism. The 60’s and 70’s ushered in a mystic/romantic grasp for truth. 80’s and 90’s more bland desire to find truth in one’s self (if it’s true for you…). We find humor and truth in that which we experience. My question is this: will we/have we seen a change toward symbolism where we forsake even trying to describe reality, but simply live for the experience of today? Do you think American culture will cease trying to seek truth, morality, and realism and simply “feel”? I have to say, it seems to be the trend of postmodernism to do such a thing. Such advertising slogans in media as “feed your crave”, and “it just feels good” have been pervasive. But I am interested in what you think. Please post any comments…
Read the rest of this entry »