Christina Leary - Dewey: Art As Experience

November 17th, 2017

Christina Leary - Dewey: Art As Experience

Outside Reading Article: Glass, N. R. (1997). Theory and practice in the experience of art: John Dewey and the Barnes Foundation. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 31(3), 91-105.

I was interested in reading the article because I love John Dewey’s work on community, the public sphere, and communication. I was intrigued to see what he thinks of art.  The article focuses on a specific nonprofit’s practices to see if the match up with John Dewey’s theories on art and education. I found that to be even more interesting because I work for a non-profit right now and I have worked with a few others throughout college. Then I found out the article is about a Philadelphia based non-profit and I had to read it because I plan on moving there. All in all the article was a fun read but a few quotes stood out to me and I want to dedicate a little paragraph to each.

The first quote is from Barnes himself and it asserts that, “We perceive only what we have learned to look for, both in life and in art....The experience of the artist arises out of a particular background, a set of interests and habits of perception, which, like the scientist's habits of thought, are potentially sharable by other individuals.” This quote makes sense to me and it is especially interesting because Barnes’ overall argument is that there is a standard to judge art objectively as opposed to subjectively. Previously I was thinking that art is always subjective but this article has left me a little confused. When Barnes says “the experience of the artist” is based on his life prior to the art, the experiences they have had, how they were raised etc., I believe that he should add the experience of the artist and the viewer. He alludes to this when he says they are sharable by other individuals but I think he should explicitly say it in order to emphasize the point.

“Experience is not passive but involves an interaction between the artist and his environment or the viewer and the painting: ‘Seeing or hearing is an active process, not a mere registration of impressions.’ First, the environment acts upon the viewer, and then the viewer reacts from his own storehouse of knowledge and memories. In a true experience something new is brought to what is present right here, right now. De Mazia writes: ‘We truly 'react' to the situation, when intelligently and imaginatively we act back with what we possess of relevant meanings at what acts upon.’” This quote made me think back to Stupid Fucking Bird and 12 Angry Jurors. It goes back to what I was thinking before when I said that 12 Angry Jurors did not speak to me like Stupid Fucking Bird did. I think Barnes articulates what I was trying to say much better. I’m not sure what qualifies as something new being brought to the table. Could it be a new feeling? Insight? Knowledge? What qualifies as something new and what doesn't?

"The artist, whether in paint, words, or musical tones, has embodied an experience in his work and to appreciate his painting or poem or symphony, we must reconstruct his experience, so far as we are able ourselves.” I especially enjoyed this quote. It does cause some confusion for me when it comes to the weight the audience has on reconstructing the artist's experience, I think that is a large burden to put on a member of the audience. I do not think the audience should be passive but reconstructing an artist’s experience is a lot of work. Perhaps the audience member would get more out of it if they reconstructed the artist's experience but I’m not sold that the artist does not have an equal role to play when it comes to understanding. Understanding seems to typically be left on the audience however I think it is a collective process. Not so much the artist has an intention and it is up to the audience to understand it or misunderstand it. Rather than that I think it could be that  the artist has intentions and so does the audience, they interpret each other, and  together they try to understand the art and its meaning. Still, I am not sure and I’m wondering, what role does intentionality and interpretation play in understanding?