Egon von Vietinghoff Foundation_Vision and representation

Introduction to the manuscript "Vision and Representation"

Discussions on art usually cannot end in agreement and are given up with the noncommittal capitulation "de gustibus non est disputandum", a Latin maxim which means, "One must not argue over tastes". Thereby, to the subjective taste, tribute is paid which is not deserved. It is different expectations of a work of art which prevent the speakers in discussion to agree, not the opposing tastes. It's no wonder that their judgments diverge when looking at a portrait, if for instance, the first beholder remarks on the likeness to the person, the second on the artistic performance and the third on the technical skills of the painter.

Also, the ambiguity of art terms must be blamed for the muddled and contradictory opinions on the substance of art communication. This confusion has ended in a chaos of terms which inevitably turns any talk on art to a "Babylonian multiplication of language". Even the simplest terms are ambiguous: we speak of a beautiful painting as of the beauty of a car, a Persian carpet or a woman; thus the dog breeder calls his dog beautiful in the same way that a farmer refers to his grain field. In each instance, the term "beautiful" is essentially different. In the case of a painting, it describes the successful artistic expression but in the case of the car, the technical utility and its modern design. One appreciates the aesthetic ornament of the carpet, the woman’s admirer judges based on his feelings whereas the beauty of the dog indicates breeding characteristics and the farmer’s reason is the expectation of an abundant harvest and profit.

When various interpretations of the same term clash, then its ambiguity becomes obvious. The farmer shakes his head when an artist paints his mowed field as, in his view its beauty has disappeared. Similarly, an aesthete does not comprehend the beauty of a slaughtered ox painted by Rembrandt, just as an indifferent man may not feel enthusiasm for an adored beauty.

To what extent the waywardness of the artistic conceptual range may lead was already obvious in the nineteen twenties, when the magazine "L’Esprit Nouveau" raised the question, "Should the Louvre be burned?" This could only happen because the sense of beauty of the so called "new spirit" had become satisfied by English pipes and the bodywork of cars rather than by works of art. The artistic importance of the term “beautiful” was exchanged with a utilitarian one.

The ambiguity of terms in art hinders not only the right judgment of art, but also brings insecurity in the natural feeling for art. This insecurity is escalated in such a way, that innumerable sects have arisen which usurp the terms of art, completely alienating them from their original meaning.

If we ask the reason for this ambiguity, where there is an inevitable end to all discussions on art, we mainly find three fundamental mistakes:

Transcendental art is equated with applied art, despite their essential differences.
The expectation of the fine arts to comment on aesthetic, psychological, historical, dialectic or intellectual issues.
The exact representation of the real phenomena or, on the contrary, the complete disregard for the real phenomena as the criteria for art.

In the following script (available only in German in the German version of this site), I will try to clear the confused terms of art and to reflect the essence of art.