Chapter One: The Live Creature

Dewey begins his text with a very busy statement that will serve as the anchor for this short section of his writing, as well as my own. He states, “By one of the ironic perversities that often attend the course of affairs, the existence of the works of art upon which formation of an esthetic theory depends has become an obstruction to theory about them” (1). What he means to say here is that the very categorization that we give to works of art—meaning that there exists a long period of unquestioned admiration for these works—cultivates an atmosphere that serves to disrupt fresh insight into these visual stimuli (1). But, what is this fresh insight? What form does it take? As mentioned in the text, “when an art product once attains classic status, it somehow becomes isolated from the human conditions under which it was brought into being and from the human consequences it engenders in actual life-experience” (1). So here, the obstruction is the separation between artistic objects and the operation of human experience.

What must be done given these circumstances? Dewey suggests that the “task is to restore continuity between the refined and intensified forms of experience that are works of art and the everyday events, doings, and sufferings that are universally recognized to constitute experience” (2). We must reconnect experience with art. Yet, how do we do that? For this dilemma, Dewey states that “one must begin with [the esthetic] in the raw; in the events and scenes that hold the attentive eye and ear of man, arousing his interest and affording him enjoyment as he looks and listens…” (3). We have to understand that art is rooted in and grows from everyday experiences.

So, back we go. We must first gain an understanding of the factors that gave rise to the compartmental conception of fine art. They are as follows:

1) Nationalism and Militarism: European museums were generally created as monuments to display national pride (quality of collection) and military dominance (looted goods). This in turn began the separation between objects and people.

2) Capitalism: The growth of capitalism, and subsequently the growth of more distinct social classes, lead to the rich surrounding themselves with priceless objects, thereby segregating these works of art from those individuals of a lower economic prowess.

3) Modern Industry and Commerce: The growth of economic cosmopolitanism caused works of art to lose their status as indigenous to communities, as they are now being commissioned by patrons. “Objects that were in the past valid and significant because of their place in the life of a community now function in isolation from the conditions of their origin. By that fact they are also set apart from common experience, and serve as insignia of taste and certificates of special culture”(8).

4) Mass Production: The artist is less integrated in the process of creation.

With all of these factors, Dewey is quick to call attention to the fact that these theories “which isolate art and its appreciation by placing them in a realm of their own, disconnected from other modes of experiencing, are not inherent in the subject-matter but arise because of specifiable extraneous conditions” (9). These obstructions are not innately present; they are constructed. Our job is to recover the continuity between art and experiences of normal living.

To be continued…