1

Personal Details

Principal Investigator Prof. A. Raghuramaraju Department of Philosophy,

University of Hyderabad

Paper Coordinator Prof. Bijoy H. Boruah Department of Humanities and Social

Studies, Indian Institute of
Technology, New Delhi

Content Writer Dr. Arundhati Mukherji Department of Philosophy, Jadavpur

University, West Bengal

Content Reviewer Prof. T.K Nizar Ahmed Former Professor, SSUS, Kalady

Language Editor Miss Aruna Ramachandran Freelancer, Manipal

Description Module

Subject name Philosophy

Paper Name Art and Aesthetics

Module Name/Title Art and Knowledge

Module Id 14.3

Prerequisites None

Objectives None

Key words Cognitive, Aesthetics, metaphorical language, poetic truth

 2

Art and Knowledge

Introduction

To get engaged in aesthetic object is definitely to get engaged with perceptual and emotional
activities, and it is perhaps, cognitive too. As such aesthetic engagement is tied to epistemological
concerns. When we observe a play, we say whether that play is good or bad, whether emotions it
produced were manipulative or justified and so on. Again people claim that they learn from art, that
art changes human being's vision, nature and mind. It is believed that art can provide knowledge about
the world. But the question is, what things are essential to know about art? Can art really teach us
significantly? Is there any propositional content which art can really provide?

In art to have knowledge does not mean that we have to have a theory. It more refers to a potential
something that emerges in a new way. To have knowledge in art may mean to see a problem from
multidimensional perspectives, to match the representational, to see something as unfolding,
expressing, interrelating various kind of meanings, rearranging various elements and giving them
relationships, which are nothing but stroke of insight at any level. Generally art involves with
heightened expression, emotion, creativity, metaphor, meaning, beauty, connection, relationships etc.,
and to understand this is indeed to have some kind of knowledge. It is said that art can act as a means
to some

special kind of knowledge. Art gives insight into the human condition it relates to science, religion
and even heightens our spirituality, works as a tool of learning or enculturation it leads human
being towards morality as well.

A discussion in Aesthetics or Philosophy of art that is quite an old one still goes on about whether art
can produce any knowledge or whether it gives any truth or corresponds to reality. Some philosophers
say that artworks are valuable only as a source of intellectual enjoyment, i.e., receivers or audiences
value the experience of artistic forms as a source of aesthetic emotion. Some other say that artworks
have content, and that viewers can have knowledge by experiencing these artworks by hearing,
reading, observing etc. Cognitivists normally support the view that art is a source of knowledge and
oppose to them, stands the anti-cognitivists view.

Can artworks denote?

An artwork can denote something metaphorically or aesthetically. Artworks, instead of being literally
true of some fictional world, can be aesthetically or metaphorically true of our world. Again an
artwork can also express emotion aesthetically or metaphorically. Artworks can be an example of an
artist's specific style through similarities to other artworks it can refer. In order to know or
 3

understand artworks we must understand the style, symbols or how it relates to other works, and so
on. That is, one cannot understand an artwork until one understands these references.

The status of an artwork is measured by referring the problems that it tries to solve, and its success in
solving those. Creativity actually consists in the power to solve problems and creating new ones.
Thus, like any scientific theory, all artworks are kind of attempts to solve problems. But just as any
scientific theory is unable to give any proven truths, so also it is said, that artwork cannot be ever
perfect or, it may always unfold itself in newer ways. So one can say that if there is really any
knowledge concerning artwork, then that knowledge would remain incomplete in the sense that it may
grow on and on continually.

Difference between Scientific use and Emotive use

We know that language can be put to multiple uses. There are three chief uses of language, viz, the
scientific, literary (aesthetic), and everyday. Literary use is the emotive use, which expresses higher
thoughts but abounds in ambiguities. That is, emotive use is full of irrational categories, not
necessarily following the rule of grammar, far from usual reference and yet having meaning. People,
while discussing statements, become obsessed with truth. But the question is, whether every statement
in an ordinary way does aim to be true at all. Lewis says that myth communicates to reality and truth
is always about something. Truth actually is grasped by imagination and this perhaps, applies to every
kind of thought. Aesthetic statements do have semantic content which can be referred to, can be
described at any time and what is produced by the artist or speaker, though subjective, has an
import, may be sufficiently stable although violating background convention or breaking the
traditional prejudice. There are certain techniques, may be, in

aesthetic use, but they vary in terms of their intentions and aims. Literary language deals much more
with expressive element than scientific ones. While scientific language is mostly popular for having
universal and objective characteristics. However, the main purpose of the everyday language is to
communicate, but this language has much in common with literary language.

According to I.A. Richards, "A statement may be used for the sake of the reference, true or false,
which it causes. This is the scientific use of language. But it may also be used for the sake of the
effects in emotion and attitude produced by the reference it occasions. This is the emotive use of
language.1 The scientific use of language deals with the denotative aspect of a language. Here we get
almost a one-to-one correspondence between sign (word) and referent. While emotive use of language
is dominated by the connotative aspect. Richards points out, that "For scientific language a difference
in the references is itself failure : the end has not been achieved. But for emotive language the widest
 4

differences in references are of no importance, if the further effects in attitude and emotion are of the
required kind."2

Literary language differs qualitatively from any language, for, literary artists use the resources of
language much more imaginatively with higher thoughts than any other human beings. It is said that
aesthetic language tightens, organizes well the resources of ordinary everyday language, and often
makes an effort to force us into awareness.3 Aesthetical or metaphorical language via imagination
often properly conveys in indispensable manner, insight into

the systems to which they refer. In this way they can generate insights about how things are in reality.
Imagination actually is a synthesizing faculty which brings about rearrangement, harmonization and
sees the true nature of things. Coleridge says that imagination is a unifying power. Poetry is the
blossom of all human knowledge, emotions, human thoughts and language. More significantly he says
that "No man was ever yet a great poet, without being at the same time, a profound philosopher."4

Can we learn from art?

Either we can learn from art or we cannot acquire knowledge that is non-propositional. Those who
accept that we can learn from art, they generally say that human being's engagement with art brings a
kind of emotion or activity which can produce knowledge, or an artwork may help to produce a
greater understanding or awareness of the world. Hence, art definitely can be a source of insight and
awareness which cannot be put under propositional knowledge rather, art enables us to observe the
world in a new dimension, art gives knowledge or understanding of a novel kind. Hausman rightly
points out that some works of art help us to show extra-aesthetic human experience or quality, and
can do so totally in and through its aesthetic aspect [Carl R.Hausman,Insights In The Arts, The
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 1986, p.164]. However, According to McAdoo, there is no
strict distinction between aesthetic purity and worldly significance, for attributions to an artwork is
done both by the use of aesthetic and non-aesthetic words. Thus aesthetic and non-aesthetic
domains are actually merged. Consequently, art and life become not separate domainsrather,

whatever is aesthetic is not discontinuous with our everyday life and language. Hence, both
aestheticity and everyday- life activity involve cognitivity [Nick McAdoo, Can Art Ever Be Just
About Itself, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 50.2, Spring, 1992, p-136].

However, those who deny that we can learn from art, try to say that every knowledge is necessarily
propositionally-based knowledge. According to Stolnitz (1992) 5, art primarily cannot contribute to
knowledge, for, it fails to generate any truth. This line of thinking denies that we can learn from art, or
art can be understood as a source of knowledge, for, it is not productive of knowledge. So, art should
be rejected as a source of knowledge, because it is unable to provide true beliefs.
 5

About Knowledge

In general knowledge is an awareness or understanding of something "something" may be skills,

descriptions, information etc, which one may acquire through learning, experience, perceiving,
discovering and so on. Knowledge can refer to both practical and theoretical understanding of a
subject or something. It can also be said that there is a reflection theory of knowledge. Marxist
aesthetics applied to the Marxist materialist theory of reflection to artistic or aesthetic objects. Here
"imitation" is a species of reflection, and a successful artwork reflects the social situation out of which
it comes out, including moral life, intentions etc. So, reflection theory would accept that humans give
meaning to art.

Further, one can see aesthetic reactions in terms of practical knowledge. By practical knowledge it is
meant how to act by extension, and again how to feel that. In another way one may say that practical
knowledge includes moral activity and aesthetic appreciation, and so this knowledge gives emphasis
on the knowledge of appropriate action or feeling in a given context. It is said that to give a theoretical
account is neither necessary nor sufficient for practical knowledge, whether moral or aesthetic. When
an artist and viewer shares the practical knowledge in the same way, there arises the basis of
communication in the aesthetic domain. One may suggest that education, upbringing in a tradition of
expression is what grounds this kind of practical knowledge.

However, knowledge is again taken as "justified true belief" but "well-justified true belief" is more
complete. Much complex cognitive processes are involved with knowledge acquisition, e.g.
reasoning, perception etc. The most commonly taken classical definition of knowledge says that in
order to be knowledge, a statement should meet some criteria that is, it should be justified, true,
believed.

Another authentic kind of knowledge is scientific knowledge. A contribution to how knowledge of the
world is acquired has been done by scientific method. A scientific method has techniques for
investigating phenomena, acquiring novel kind of knowledge or correcting previous knowledge. This
method is based on empirical and observable evidence subject to principles of reasoning and
experimentation. ["Rules for the study of natural philosophy",

Newton, 1999, pp. 794-6 from the general Scholium which follows Book3. The system of the World].

Commonly people have a propensity to take the classical and scientific ways in order to acquire
knowledge of the world. But it is a fact that these ways are not without doubt and can carry us to some
big convergence on the truth in general. However, epistemology involved with the study of justified
belief tries to deal with the problems like how to understand the concept of justification? How one
knows that his beliefs are justified? Beliefs enter into human being's mind for a variety of causes.
Among them, emotional needs, superstition, desires and many other biases may be playing as
 6

psychological factors. When beliefs like these arise, they are not taken as knowledge even if true.
Because it is maintained that true beliefs can make knowledge, and it is necessary that they arise in
sources where there are adequate reliable reason. But the point is, things can be radically different
from what we take them to be.

However, traditionally propositional knowledge at least has been defined as justified true belief. To
make it clear, in order for beliefs to be considered knowledge people had to believe it, again there had
to be justification for the belief and lastly belief had to be true. Although this has been challenged, yet
normally people try to keep this traditional definition of knowledge in mind while discussing about
knowledge. Truth is mostly used to mean being accord with reality or fact, or to a standard, and to
understand something as true is as good as having knowledge of it.

Some Views Concerning Art and Knowledge

Plato

Plato considers knowledge as "justified true belief." Plato saw art as twice removed from reality, i.e.,
an imitation of an imitation of reality. Thus poet's words are "three removes from reality, and easy to
6
produce without knowledge of the truth" (Plato, Republic 10 599a). According to Plato, mere
appearance of anything that is the "yellow chair" of the painter is a mere appearance and that should
be avoided in favour of reality. In this way Plato radically excludes the mimetic artist from his ideal
state. He would say that the painter or an artist attracts us with appearances and tries to confuse image
with reality. This position of Plato obviously will never accept that art can produce knowledge or
truth. But this position has been criticized by many thinkers by admitting that the exposition of
appearances through mimesis or imitation can produce knowledge and can be valuable as well, and so
can help us to lead to reality or external world. Vasari, therefore, rightly says that "painting is simply
the imitation of all the living things of nature with their colours and designs just as they are in nature".
7

Plato points out in Republic (595-601) that artists and thus art mislead their audiences into thinking
that knowledge consists in the mimetic object. Plato says that if one is swayed by emotions and
imaginations, then he/she, in result, would have to face the consequences of unbalanced soul and
defective character. He says that artists write very many things, for example, about courage, beauty
and other virtues by not knowing them clearly it is

only philosopher who tries to intuit the Forms and apply abstract reasoning, can truly have knowledge
of these virtues.
 7

Aristotle

However, Aristotle, a pupil of Plato, developed the independent character of aesthetic activity

and experience which came to show as a reaction against the views of Plato. Art for both Aristotle and
Plato is indeed imitation or mimesis or representation, but that does not imply that art should be
removed from the domain of true understanding. It is a fact that human beings are already engaged in
recognizing what is represented, and so can recognize which is the source of pleasure in artworks. The
fact is, that in representing the actions of humans, poetry or art is able to convey general truths about
the world and our condition.

Aristotle regards mostly all arts as essentially mimetic. Mimesis, for him, is an artistic representation
in its multiple styles and modes. Moreover, Aristotle, unlike Plato, takes all mimetic activites as
productive processes which follow rational principles intrinsically, and enable producer to conceive of
the particular artistic forms, (Metaphysics 7.7).8 However, Aristotle rightly says that indulging in the
mimetic emotions or representations that Plato warned us of can actually help or benefit one's conduct
by generating an emotional catharsis (Poetics, 144 9b 24 - 29 ). According to Aristotle, by purifying
the tragic emotions, one can become more rational in everyday life. It stands now that both Plato and
Aristotle

believed that we can learn from art but Plato argued that here the learning is detrimental, while
Aristotle argued it was significant, rather beneficial.

One may say that the justification of fiction or imaginative literature lies in the fact that what we call
"poetic truth" or "metaphoric truth" is somewhat opposed to what is called "historical" or
"metaphysical" truth. Thus, poetry is different from history and regarding this Aristotle says, that
history relates what has happened, while poetry relates what may happen. More clearly, according to
Aristotle, "poetry is something more philosophical and more elevated than history, since poetry
relates more of the universal while history relates particulars,"9 (Aristotle, Poetics, IX, 145 1b, 3,4).
What Aristotle means is that works of art can possess a richness of value and significance which
invites the larger conceptions that structure human understanding. In art the images actually entail the
cognitive and affective parts that structure our experience in general. Aristotle's framework, thus,
presupposes that art can be a source of knowledge and truth. To interpret him one may say that art has
the power to elicit responses in which the psychological feelings in the shape of experience or
knowledge are integrated. For Aristotle, imitation or mimetic representation does not get derailed
from knowledge, rather representation of the real thing has a great artistic value.
 8

Romantic Era

Plato refuses to accept any relation between art with truth and real knowledge, whereas , Aristotle
accepts the cognitive aspect of art. But in the Romantic era the poet Keats says "Beauty is truth,
truth beauty that is all" ("Ode on a Grecian Urn", by John Keats). In Romantic era issue related to
art shows how art relates to truth and knowledge, or how the elevation of art can be the source of
knowledge and truth. Art, in fact corresponds to transcendental truth, which is much higher than what
we gather from science and experience. The romantic conception of art is something radical, for, it
emphasizes imagination and intuition and creates a different understanding of our known world. In
fact, this conception is far away from the empirical conception prevalent at the classical time, with
emphasis on reason or experience. Art, therefore, claims for a different approach which is separated
from scientific propositions depending on true belief and unable to provide justified knowledge but
what art can give is the insights into the world and take account of multiple human worldviews.

Rationalists and Empiricists

All through the Renaissance and beyond, philosophers went on with the view that human beings can
learn from art, and that any art form is involved with emotions and imagination in a helpful way. But
the rationalists did not support the idea that the imagination could be a source of knowledge and as a
result, they strictly maintained that knowledge involves justified true belief, but this rationalist view is
hard to get in the realm of art.

In the same way empiricist idea also became unhelpful. The empiricists question is, how to gain
justified knowledge from fictional context or entities? For them, it is no way possible to learn actual
things from fictional situations. So, it stands that to both rationalist and empiricist the idea of learning
or obtaining knowledge from art is not helpful or possible.

Contrast to Rationalist and Empiricist epistemology, Romantic epistemology puts emphasis on both
imagination and reason. Romantic idea suggests that there may be multiple ways and views to
experience and construct the world. Thus, for them, there is no one definite perspective from which
Truth can be seen or determined. We have to develop the notion of transcendence in order to extend
the dimension of truth and thus knowledge. Romantics would say that natural science describes the
physical world from a single point of view but art can describe the world by transcending
experience of the so-called physical world into the emotional and supernatural. It is true that art does
not record truths of the world in the way that science does but nevertheless art gives insight to
understand the world in a peculiar and different way and that too with accuracy.
 9

Heidegger

Heidegger calls "truth" in many names. In his Being and Time, he refers truth as "uncoveredness" and
"disclosure" in On the Essence of Truth and The Origin of the Work of art, he uses the word
"unconcealment". Heidegger moved away from the traditional concept of truth. To him, traditional
concept of truth takes truth as assertion, i.e, one can make a judgement about what is

true; again this judgement about truth must correspond rightfully with the things in reality, and this
judgement must be subjective. The traditional concept thus stresses on the essence of truth lies in the
agreement of the judgement with its object.10 In brief the standard conception of truth stands "as
correspondence of the matter to knowledge". Heidegger claims that before making any judgement
about truth, one first must observe the truth as it is it must be uncovered or unconcealed. He talks,
therefore, of different concept of truth.11 To him the essence of truth must not lie in human judgement,
rather it must be something eternal.12

Heideggers truth is not a judgement one could make when one says "this is true". Truth, to him, is
rather a fact of Being it is the way in which things are in their most essential uncovered sense it
is Dasein's disclosedness, to which the unconcealedness of entities within-the-world belongs. It must
occur before knowledge truth is the disclosure of the way in which an entity is.13

Thus Heideggerian truth stands external to judgement. According to him, art is nothing but a word to
which nothing actual corresponds; purpose of the artwork is to act in the uncoveredness of beings.
This is what connects art and truth. More he says that artwork produces truth by "setting up' a world.
Heidegger says in his The Origin of the Work of Art (pp.89, 109, 127) that "all art is in essence
poetry". To him the artwork acts at the uncoveredness of truth but how does it act or work? It
works by making something public, manifesting something other. The work is a symbol of the subject
it represents it is a reproduction of the thing's general essence (The Origin of the Work of Art,
P.103).

Gadamer

For Gadamer, experience of art contains a claim to truth which is totally different from science, but
not inferior to it. He would say that art is knowledge and to experience a work of art means nothing
but sharing in that knowledge. In fact experience of art is a mode of knowledge of unique kind,
obviously different from the sensory knowledge which provides science, and different from moral
rational knowledge, from all conceptual knowledge as well yet art is knowledge, i.e., conveys
truth.

An idea is great in Gadamer's aesthetics and that is the concept of play. A big transformation takes
place when play as such becomes a play. It puts the viewer in the place of player. For example, when
 10

we watch a drama with a seriousness, the pleasure of the drama is the joy of knowledge of a unique
kind. This gives a transformation into structure its total meaning. Transformation means that
something is suddenly changed into something else, and this transformation is a transformation into
the true. While experiencing art one knows and recognizes something and oneself the joy of
recognition is the joy of knowing something more than which was already known. In recognition,
therefore, something new emerges and grasped in its essence.14

What kind of Knowledge is knowledge of art?

The artistic forms, their ways of relating to reality and the meanings of artworks could make us realize
that no referentiality of content would help to give right approaches, meanings and knowledge
through arts. Art actually transcends its referential content through its forms, consequently aesthetic
realization becomes deeper and so does not co-incide with our conventional meaning. Knowledge in
aesthetic domain is transferred or transformed. When any artwork offers us some knowledge, then
that, as content of artwork, is conveyed directly on the process the artist chooses to express himself
/herself.

Knowledge claims about the arts

One may say that there are some basic knowledge claims that can be made about arts. First, what we
know or believe about the aesthetic object. No knowledge of an art object can be taken in terms of
justified true belief (classical sense). There can be infinite interpretations in an art-situation. The
knowledge claims about the art content may not have the same kind of validity.

Another knowledge claim concerns how to understand or judge what kind of response to a particular
artwork is more justified. The main point is, we do have an emotional response to art and this shows
that there is definitely something in the art element that is worth responding to.

The next knowledge claim about art is, how can we have real knowledge from art which involves
fictionalities? However, it is very much accepted that art does provide insight to understand the world,
it gives significance to our lives, creates new beliefs and so new knowledge of the world. But the
problem is, it becomes somewhat dangerous if we obtain knowledge only from fiction. At the same
time it is also a fact that much that we learn from art about the world does come from art, and so
claims to knowledge must be taken care of.

However, justified true belief may work in the normal context of a proposition in order to have
knowledge. But in the art-situation it does not work at all, yet art holds some legitimate ground. The
knowledge provided by art or aesthetic domain may be able to identify what it is about the artwork
itself, qua artwork, which gives knowledge. Of course there is something in the art-context which is
 11

knowledge-producing. Otherwise why do we go to interpret art and want to make a significant

progress? Moreover, the knowledge we have from art has more to do with the relationship between
the artwork and its audience. There are, however, more than one way to know or learn, and so to learn
through art is a novel way, which is not simply propositional in nature. We can even have moral
knowledge, knowledge about our lives and even spiritual knowledge from art.

Some Objections

N. Carroll (2002) goes against the view that art can give knowledge. According to him, the knowledge
that we obtain from propositional statements are not really useless as arts. Whatever art speaks of the
general truths of life and world are in fact trivial. Again, art does not carry any evidence to make
knowledge valid. Moreover, if for argument's sake it is accepted that artworks imply knowledge or
truths, yet, it is not seen that the whole aesthetic domain, including artworks, the critical discourse etc.
ever engages in debate or argument for defending the domain.

Following Plato many believe that art cannot be a source of knowledge, if traditional sense is taken.
Because art cannot deal with propositions of truth-value. Stolnitz as an anti-cognitivist says that even
if art tries to provide knowledge, it is just trivial one. But some modest category anti-cognitivists say
that although whatever knowledge the art may provide is without truth-value or non-propositional,
still this can be a source of insight and awareness. At least art provides a novel kind of relationship to
our mind which is nothing but a deep insight.15

Some said radically that we do get knowledge through art or literature and this knowledge is
propositional in character but understanding the statements as part of literary experience need an
analysis of their possible truth and falsity, which is not invited in aesthetic domain.16

Some again say, that when we talk of propositional knowledge in art, then that is not propositional in
a direct way, rather it can be called "modal propositional knowledge", i.e., knowledge of possibility.17
Thus, artworks form modal conceiving, which help us to see possibilities. That is why Stoke says that
"artworks ...... that sustain cognitive interest, are well-suited to provide us with knowledge".18
Knowledge through art is not limited, we can extend our knowledge in aesthetic domain from the
usual it is, rather the traditional model of propositional knowledge which really is a restricted one,
for, it does not include things like "knowing how to perceive, imagine and feel ......... and knowing
what a certain experience is like."19

Reply to the Objections

One must note, that cognitive and aesthetic values in fact, support each other. The cognitive value of
an artwork is furthered by its aesthetic value the aesthetic is cognitive from the very beginning.20
 12

Thus, we can say that art is a source of knowledge without being trivial. In art cognitive value does
not deal with justified true beliefs, rather effective understanding, aesthetic ideas, infinite procedure of
understanding that enhances more thoughts are important in art. To discover meanings in art is to
trigger our cognitive power, insight, and thinking. Artwork can teach us how to see, think in newer
ways which no other work can. Aesthetic ideas take us to the unexpected horizons with new
dimensions, for meaningful adventure.

Conclusion

To conclude it can be said that art as a means to truth or knowledge takes us to see art as a means to
the acquisition of truth. Great men say that art is the greatest path to the highest knowledge, and we
must take this with a value. Normally propositional knowledge has been much emphasized. By sense-
observation we can learn that rain falls from the sky and this counts as knowledge in our ordinary
circumstances. However, knowledge in the case of art is not acquired in the same manner. Indeed, we
make some propositions by experiencing an artwork e.g. surely literature (artwork) consists of
sentences which do convey propositions, i.e., make assertions that are either true or false. Bur some
thinkers take the propositions about fiction, myth or non-existent entities as neither true not false. Yet,
this fact does not dismiss altogether the value of literature as an artwork. The non-existence of small
people and land that has been described by Swift in his Gulliver's Travels no way is less valuable, less
significant. Actually the worth and truth of literature can be found in the statements where a
worldview is displayed. In appreciating art, audiences do not need to use straightforwardly the "Yes"
or "No" statements rather, they look, appreciate and fully involve with the feelings of the
worldviews that are there in the artwork. Viewers or audiences try to bring out the meanings or
worldviews by different interpretations, but that is not a demerit of an artwork or its creator. Rather,
different kinds of interpretations show that an artwork can have infinite possibilities which make the
path to see an artwork every time in a novel way. Moreover, infinite possibilities drag us towards new
knowledge as well.

Therefore, truth is there in the work of art and thus in literature, but the truth is not strictly connected
to propositions. A character in a drama or novel is taken as true to human nature. Hence, one can very
well say that truth in

novel or fiction does not mean truth of the statements, rather, truth to human nature. Art, therefore,
cultivates such forms of cognition or knowledge which allows us to realize that there is an alternative
way to think, live, to see human nature, worldviews, and to have aesthetic experiences, which is
normally different from natural or scientific attitudes.