Empathy in Art

[coberst]

Empathy in Art

 

Wilhelm Worringer’s book “Abstraction and Empathy”, first published in 1908, is considered by many to be a landmark interpretation of modern art. Worringer speaks of two forms of aesthetics, i.e. appreciation of beauty. There is the appreciation of beauty in nature and there is an appreciation of the plastic arts.

 

Worringer limits his study to the plastic arts; and he begins his analysis by presupposing “that the work of art, as an autonomous organism, stands beside nature on equal terms and, in its deepest and innermost essence, devoid of any connection with it, in so far as by nature is understood the visible surface of things.”

 

Modern aesthetics has moved from the consideration of aesthetics as an objective study to a subjective object of study. The focus is upon the contemplating subject and thus develops a theory of empathy, which is only one pole of modern aesthetics with abstraction being the opposite pole.

 

Empathy, as a pre-assumption of an aesthetic experience, finds beauty in the organic whereas the pre-assumption of the urge to abstraction “finds its beauty in the life-denying inorganic…in all abstract law and necessity.”

 

“Aesthetic enjoyment is objectified self-enjoyment…To enjoy aesthetically means to enjoy myself in a sensuous object diverse from myself, to empathize myself into it.”

 

Worringer is informing us that whereas earlier forms of aesthetics focused on pleasure and its opposite--un-pleasure, his concentration is upon the inner life and self-activation of the viewing subject. “The presupposition of the act of empathy is the general apperceptive activity.”

 

Worringer is also focusing on the fact that, while generally unrecognized by the philosophical objectivism view, each sensuous object is always the product of both that sensation which is given and my apperceptive activity.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

“Aesthetic enjoyment is objectified self-enjoyment…To enjoy aesthetically means to enjoy myself in a sensuous object diverse from myself, to empathize myself into it.”

 

For me this holds true not only in the "physical arts" (painting, sculpture etc.) but also in music. Is this book still in print? Sounds like a good read:)

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Second attempt...Wierd things goin on here!

 

O.k. Now it's back!!!!!!What the fudge!!!!!!!!

 

Now the question is when I go to "Has global warming research misinterpreted cloud behavior?" this time will it disapear again....and will I be logged off yet again!

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Yup!!!!!!!!!!! something really screwed up here!

[coberst]

For me this holds true not only in the "physical arts" (painting, sculpture etc.) but also in music. Is this book still in print? Sounds like a good read:)

 

Yes, I just bought the book from Amazon.com

[jedaisoul]

Modern aesthetics has moved from the consideration of aesthetics as an objective study to a subjective object of study. The focus is upon the contemplating subject and thus develops a theory of empathy, which is only one pole of modern aesthetics with abstraction being the opposite pole.

 

Empathy, as a pre-assumption of an aesthetic experience, finds beauty in the organic whereas the pre-assumption of the urge to abstraction “finds its beauty in the life-denying inorganic…in all abstract law and necessity.”

 

“Aesthetic enjoyment is objectified self-enjoyment…To enjoy aesthetically means to enjoy myself in a sensuous object diverse from myself, to empathize myself into it.”

Previously, when you started a thread on empathy in art, I pointed out that the definition of empathy is feeling someone else's emotions. Feeling their hurt, feeling their joy. As it says in Wikipedia:

Empathy is the capacity to recognise or understand another's state of mind or emotion. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes", or to in some way experience the outlook or emotions of another being within oneself. It may be described metaphorically as an emotional kind of resonance or mirroring.

Therefore you can feel empathy with the artist, but you cannot feel empathy with a lump of wood, clay, or paint on a canvas in itself. Viewing a piece of art can engender feelings for the work of at in itself, but those feelings are not empathy. Period. The meaning of the word is clear. Any other use of it is at best misinformed, or possibly deliberately disingenuous.

 

Worringer is also focusing on the fact that... each sensuous object is always the product of both that sensation which is given and my appreceptive activity.

I don't happen to agree, but I acknowledge that this is a legitimate view. So long as you don't call that sensation "empathy".

 

I tend to the view that, in general, the artist alone produces the work of art. The role of the viewer is to grasp the sensuality put there by the artist. So it is a collaboration, but the work of art is just as worthy if it is unappreciated by the viewer. However, I acknowledge that an artist may, like nature, produce something that is stunningly beautiful, without conscious intent. So the viewer may legitimately see qualities that were not intentionally put there. But those qualities are not produced by the viewer. The viewer merely appreciates them. That is a big difference.

[coberst]

Jedaisoul

 

I am new to the study of art but it appears that Worringer has produced "a landmark study in the interpretation of modern art, first published in 1908, has seldom been out of print. Its profound impact not only on art historians and theorists but on generations of creative writers and intellectuals is almost unprecedented. Starting from the notion that beauty derives from our sense of being able to identify with an object, Worringer argues that representational art produces satisfaction from our "objectified delight in the self".”

 

I would say that "to identify with the object" means the same thing as to identify with another person. The object can be a work of art or another human being if the viewer is successful in the act of empathy.

[jedaisoul]

I am new to the study of art but it appears that Worringer has produced "a landmark study in the interpretation of modern art, first published in 1908, has seldom been out of print. Its profound impact not only on art historians and theorists but on generations of creative writers and intellectuals is almost unprecedented.

Let me quote Wikipedia:

Worringer was influential because he saw abstract art (for example, Islamic art) as being in no way inferior to "realist" art, and worthy of respect in its own right. This was critical justification for the increased use of abstraction in pre-war European art.

At a time when the art establishment was convinced that abstract art was inferior to "realist" art, Warringer stated that abstract art was the equal of realist art. For that he is, justly, famous.

 

However, turning to his use of the term "empathize"...

I would say that "to identify with the object" means the same thing as to identify with another person. The object can be a work of art or another human being if the viewer is successful in the act of empathy.

The correct term for what Warringer is talking about is projection:

• You can project your emotions onto an inanimate object or a sentient being.
  
• You can empathize with another sentient being, by feeling their emotions.
  
• You cannot empathize with an object, as the object has no emotions to empathize with.

Warringer's own words (which you quoted) make it clear that he is projecting, not empathising:

Aesthetic enjoyment is objectified self-enjoyment…To enjoy aesthetically means to enjoy myself in a sensuous object diverse from myself

He is clearly identifying his own emotions with the object. That is projection.

 

The question is, why did Warringer then say:

...to empathize myself into it.

Why would an intelligent, well educated man chose to use the word "empathize" when he clearly meant "project":

• Did he genuinely believe that he was empathizing with a piece of wood, stone or painted canvas? His own words suggest not, as what he describes is clearly an act of projection.
  
• Perhaps he was using the term poetically? "Empathize" is a word that has a warmth and general aura that is pleasing. "Projection" has a much harder feel, and is often used when describing mental illness, where the patient may project their own illness onto the psyciatrist, believing him/her to be mentally ill.
  
• Perhaps he was just being pompous?

Whatever his reasons, IMHO, this use of the word "empathize" had led to a lot of pompous twaddle being said about modern art. It is inappropriate, and claims an emotional connection with an object which is simply not possible.

 

Note: This is not intended as a criticism of you personally. As you have said, you are new to the study of art, and therefore are simply repeating the words of a famous art historian. However, philosophically, we need to recognise both the good in what Worringer achieved, and the less good. He clearly abused the word "empathize", and this usage has unfortunately stuck. I believe that it is time for a re-evaluation.

[coberst]

Jedaisoul

 

What is the meaning of ‘meaning’? A strange question in one sense but as fundamental a question as one needs to pursue in another sense.

 

I would say that meaning is an emotion that I recognize when the emotion engendered by an inducer is reflected back to me in the form of feelings.

 

I go to the theatre so that I can watch a movie while eating my pop-corn. A movie projector projects images on a screen for my entertainment.

 

When I empathesize with an object, human or otherwise, I am searching for the emotion of ‘meaning’. My effort at empathy may or may not be successful. I internally view an objectification of my emotion if that emotion is triggered, which comes to me as feeling, as those feelings are reflected to me by the object into which I empathesize.

 

“It is through feelings, which are inwardly directed and private, that emotions, which are outwardly directed and public, begin their impact on the mind; but the full and lasting impact of feelings requires consciousness, because only along with the advent of a sense of self do feelings become known to the individual having them.”

 

First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.

 

What are the emotions? The primary emotions are happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust. The secondary or social emotions are such things as pride, jealousy, embarrassment, and guilt. Damasio considers the background emotions are well-being or malaise, and calm or tension. The label of emotion has also been attached to drives and motivations and to states of pain and pleasure.

 

I would add meaning to this list of emotions.

 

Antonio Damasio, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, testifies in his book “The Feelings of What Happens” that the biological process of feelings begins with a ‘state of emotion’, which can be triggered unconsciously and is followed by ‘a state of feeling’, which can be presented nonconsciously; this nonconscious state can then become ‘a state of feeling made conscious’.

 

Human emotion and feeling pivot on consciousness; this fact has not been generally recognized prior to Damasio’s research. Emotion has probably evolved long before consciousness and surfaces in many of us when caused by inducers we often do not recognize consciously.

 

The powerful contrast between emotion and feeling is used by the author in his search for a comprehension of consciousness. It is a neurological fact, states the author, that when consciousness is suspended then emotion is likewise usually suspended. This observed human characteristic led Damasio to suspect that even though emotion and consciousness are different phenomenon that there must be an important connection between the two.

 

Damasio proposes “that the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.” This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.

 

Empirical evidence indicates that we need not be conscious of emotional inducers nor can we control emotions willfully. We can, however, control the entertainment of an emotional inducer even though we cannot control the emotion induced.

 

I was raised as a Catholic and taught by the nuns that “impure thoughts” were a sin only if we “entertained’ bad thoughts after an inducer caused an emotion that we felt, i.e. God would not punish us for the first impure thought but He would punish us for dwelling upon the impure thought. If that is not sufficient verification of the theory derived from Damasio’s empirical evidence, what is?

 

In a typical emotion, parts of the brain sends forth messages to other parts of the body, some of these messages travel via the blood stream and some via the body’s nerve system. These neural and chemical messages results in a global change in the organism. The brain itself is just as radically changed. But, before the brain becomes conscious of this matter, before the emotion becomes known, two additional steps must occur. The first is feeling, i.e. an imaging of the bodily changes, followed by a ‘core consciousness’ to the entire set of phenomena. “Knowing an emotion—feeling a feeling—only occurs at this point.”

 

Quotes from "The Feeling of What Happens" by Antonio Damasio

[jedaisoul]

What is the meaning of ‘meaning’? A strange question in one sense but as fundamental a question as one needs to pursue in another sense. I would say that meaning is an emotion that I recognize when the emotion engendered by an inducer is reflected back to me in the form of feelings.

Emotions can be meaningful, as can ideas. But that does not make "meaning" an emotion. This is a logical fallacy.

 

I go to the theatre so that I can watch a movie while eating my pop-corn. A movie projector projects images on a screen for my entertainment.

I'm not sure of your purpose in making this comment, but the projection of an image by a cine projector is a good metaphor for the way that people project their emotions onto others, and to objects. Note: I would however mention that I am using the term "projection" in a wider sense than the strictly psycological meaning. The latter relates to the projection of unwanted emotions onto another individual. I am using it in a more general sense of projecting any emotion onto an individual or object.

 

When I empathesize with an object, human or otherwise, I am searching for the emotion of ‘meaning’. My effort at empathy may or may not be successful. I internally view an objectification of my emotion if that emotion is triggered, which comes to me as feeling, as those feelings are reflected to me by the object into which I empathesize.

As said, you may search for the meaning of an emotion, but meaning is not an emotion. Also, I have shown that this use of the term "empathize" is erroneous. If you disagree with my analysis, then please point out where and why it is wrong. I'll gladly discuss the pros and cons. Simply using the term yourself in the same erroneous manner proves nothing.

 

Note: I have not commented on your lengthy discussion of feelings and emotions. This is because, although it may be valid in itself, as a commentary on the validity of the use of the term "empathize" it combines three forms of logical fallacy:

• Ignoratio elenchi - It was irrelevant.
  
• Argument from authority - quoting Antonio Damasio does not make it correct.
  
• Proof by verbosity.

 

Please stick to the subject at issue.

[coldcreation]

...Please stick to the subject at issue.

 

What exactly do you wish to discuss?

 

I have read this entier thread, and find it difficult to figure out what you want to know or find out from others here at Hypography.

 

Certainly there is empathy in art, just as there are many other issues involved. Why single out empathy?

 

Are you interested in discussing particular artists, or their works, such as Metzinger, Gleizes, Gris (in the relation firguration-geometry) Delaunay, Kandinsky, Kupka, Malevich (in relation to their abstractions), or Duchamp (in relation to neither)?

 

CC

[jedaisoul]

What exactly do you wish to discuss?

 

I have read this entier thread, and find it difficult to figure out what you want to know or find out from others here at Hypography.

 

Certainly there is empathy in art, just as there are many other issues involved. Why single out empathy?

I agree that there is empathy in art. What I disagreed with is Warringer's use of the term. Empathy is defined as feeling someone else's emotions. So it is certainly possible to be empathic with the artist and feel his/her sorrow, pain, joy etc. as expressed in his/her art.

 

However, That is not what Warringer is talking about (as far as I can tell). What he is using the term for is the observer projecting his/her own emotions onto someone else's work of art. He sees this as part of the creative process of producing a work of art. Now, this may, or may not, be a valid expression of the creative process; what it is not is empathy.

 

Also, I take the view that the artist alone creates the work of art. It is the viewer's role to seek to understand the artist's meaning, as expressed in the work of art.

 

Does this matter? I think so. These points are fundamental to his interpretation of art appreciation. So there are two things I'm trying to discuss:

1) Do people agree that Warringer uses the term "empathy" incorrectly. He is talking about projection not empathy.

2) Do people agree that the viewer does not play a part in the creative process of producing a work of art?

 

These points are independent. I.e. You might agree that Warringer's use of the term "empathy" is erroneous, but agree with his interpretation of the creative process. Or whatever. I hope that make sense...