Aesthetics

I’ve been reading Bernard Bosanquet’s translation of Hegel’s Introductory Lectures on Aesthetics recently. I read it back in 2002 but decided to revisit it and a few things have struck me so far. Hegel asserts that there are “two opposite ways of treating” the subject of aesthetics. I may be misreading Hegel but aesthetics appears to refer to “a knowledge of the essence of fine art” (17) or a philosophy of art or the science of what is beautiful (which does not include nature). Art includes painting, sculpting, music, poetry, etc. So I’m going to discuss Hegel’s Introductory Lectures on Aesthetics from a poetic perspective.

First, there is the development of theories that “govern both criticism and artistic production” (18, italics mine). These theories rely upon an extensive familiarity with classic and contemporary poetry, a vast knowledge of history, a vivid imagination to recall the varied forms, movements, etc. within classic and contemporary poetry. These theories lead to judgments which form tastes or personal preference. Hegel states that “it remains invariably the case that every man judges works of art…according to the measure of his insight and his feelings” (19). To put it another way, we develop theories based on our knowledge and our tastes, which informs our criticism of poetry and poetic production or what elements we believe should be part of the production of beautiful poetry. Perhaps it’s kind of like having a wealth of knowledge about Chili and arriving at what one believes to be the perfect recipe for Chili.

The second way of treating the subject of aesthetics is a general treatment of poetry that doesn’t touch on the particulars of poetry (language, craft, form, etc.) but is a more of an abstract philosophy of what is beautiful. This second means of treating aesthetics should transcend personal preference, taste, etc.

This leads me to something, or actually two specific things, that have pissed me off in the past few years. First, there was Billy Collins’ introduction to Best American Poetry 2006 as well as his comments at the Best American Poetry event at the New School in September 2006 which included comments that pitted his so-called “school of clarity” against the “school of difficulty” or “water” against “mud.”

Secondly, there was Charles Wright’s introduction to the Best American Poetry 2008 in which Wright states: “I like things to make sense nowadays. Putting aside the nagging possibility that one man’s sense is another man’s sensibility, as the years wind down, I like a definitiveness in things, I want to understand them, even though I know there is precious little sense in earthly affairs (or unearthly ones, for that matter), and God knows not an unlit wick of understanding. Art is supposed, they say, to make sense out of the senseless, coherence out of the incoherent, and connections out of the unconnectible.” He goes onto to comment on the health of contemporary poetry: not a lot of bad poems, but not a lot of good ones (you can see more about this conversation on John Gallaher’s blog).

I was incensed at Billy Collins’ remarks. I was disappointed with Charles Wright’s comments. But after re-reading Hegel I started thinking that their comments are indicative of the theories they’ve developed regarding criticism and artistic production which have led to judgments about what should be in a poem or to use my chili metaphor what ingredients make the best possible chili. Their comments are not reflective of an abstract philosophy of what is beautiful. Their comments are reflective of personal taste…not truth.

Of course there’s going to be conflict between differing theories and Hegel admits as much by suggesting disputes will arise as to which theory is the essential theory. The error occurs when one confuses a practical theory of criticism and artistic production for an abstract philosophy of what is beautiful or vice versa which I think Wright does by articulating that "art is supposed, they say, to make sense out of the senseless..." which seems more like a function of art but the definitiveness of his comment seems to imply something much larger the function or a theory of criticism or artistic production. In addition, I think it’s egregious to believe there is one essential theory…after all haven’t Collins or Wright been to a chili cook off. I don’t like spicy chili but that doesn’t make spicy chili bad chili. Hell, I know people that like Hormel chili just fine. So, I don't know what I'm concluding other then the fact that perhaps anthologies suck unless they're truly like a good old fashioned chili cook off.