| Popis: |
At first glance, the title seems to be a bit contradictory. Isn't art supposed to be nonrational? Isn't that the point? These questions are what this essay aims to reconsider. It is a wide topic indeed, and widely covered as well. Here, I will offer a few thoughts about rationality in general, and point out a possibly fruitful direction of thinking about art in the terms of rationality I propose. To do this, I will compare art with the cultural enterprise that is widely regarded as the truly rational one science. One of the twentieth century's characteristic features is that art and science have come to be seen as somewhat diametrically opposed. If the scientific enterprise is generally considered to be the hallmark of rational thought, as is the case in modern Western culture, then essentially nonscientific enterprises, like art (and religion, for that matter) would be generally considered to be nonrational. I wish to suggest that this is basically what happened, and that it is a mistake. I will focus on a particular case from the mid-eighteenth century which I believe to be the watershed, the point at which art and science split and went in opposite directions, and then will offer an initial reconsideration of art as a rational activity. I should note here that I see rationality as having a rather wide range. The usual definitions of rationality revolve around notions of effective means, and knowing how to choose and employ the most effective means to attain a desired goal is considered to be rational thought. This is an instrumental view of rationality. I ask that we take a richer view. The strictly instrumental view is somewhat belittling, even of science. Science is not merely a tool for solving problems. The attempt to attain true knowledge is a perfectly rational endeavor. Understanding the true nature of a phenomenon, and as a result adopting an appropriate and sound position toward it is perfectly rational, even if no specific problem is solved. Thus, in addition |
