Stephen C. Pepper and Chinese
Philosophy of Art[*]
Suncrates
and
Sandra
A. Wawrytko
Respectfully
Dedicated
to
Lewis E. Hahn:
The greatest Contextualist
of
A genius of friendship
with cosmopolitan vision;
An artist of living
wisely!
Foreword
The basic principles are the same the world
over. In fact, for me it was a special joy to
recognize as if in a C=
hinese
character some
principles I had often
taught in English.[1][†]
=
---- Stephe=
n C.
Pepper
As this Congress is held as par=
t of
the activities for celebrating the 500th anniversary of Columbus’ arr=
ival
in America, we propose to discuss “Stephen C. Pepper and Chinese
Philosophy of Art” — a topic which we hope would be found both
appropriate and relevant to our central themes “America and Its
Philosophical Expression.”
Paradoxically, intent on findin=
g out
a “short-cut” to the Orient, Columbus discovered
As the common saying
goes, he who confesses is blessed.
Allow us to begin with a confession.
While first studyin=
g Aesthetic Quality back in the late
sixtieth, co-author Suncrates’ initial impression was that Pepper sou=
nded
quite like a Chinese philosopher of art, even speaking with a Chinese
accent, if read between the lines.
So exhilarated, he told his mentor Professor Lewis E. Hahn — t=
oo
prematurely perhaps — of his youthful joy of
“discovery.” As u=
sual,
Hahn asked him for sufficient concrete, hard evidences. He had none at the =
time
until months afterwards when, as luck would have it, he happened to find th=
e final
confirmation in Pepper’s own words cited herein.
When Nietszche
called Kant “the great Chinese in Königsber=
g”
it is, we believe, because he had never heard of Pepper, who urged: “We could do with a lot of <=
span
class=3DSpellE>qi in
Two scores have nea=
rly
passed since he first tasted the sheer joy of discovery. In this short
comparative study, however, our focal interest has shifted from the 5th cen=
tury
Chinese art critic Xie He (fl. 490) to Shi Tao
(1630-1717), one of the greatest creative artists and the most penetrating =
and
profound, the most original and systematic philosopher on Chinese art of
painting that
Lastly, availing
ourselves of this opportunity, we wish to dedicate to Lewis E. Hahn this sh=
ort
piece of comparative studies in philosophy of art to arouse congenial inter=
ests
and responses from the younger generationn of
creative minds the world over, regardless of East or West.
Suncrates and
Sandra A. Wawrytko
April, 2009
<=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-family:Arial;color:black'>One of the best writer=
s on
aesthetics this country has produced.
….=
Nothing =
he wrote
has so much truth
and pene=
trating
originality as his
<=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'font-family:Arial;color:black'> Aesthetic Quality, a masterpiece
of analysis of aesthetic categories=
.=
=
[3]
=
=
---- Charles Hartshorne
1. &nbs=
p;
The
Challenge from Kant:
What
Imparts Life to Works of Art?
<= o:p>
I=
t is
to Immanuel Kant, father of our modern aesthetics, that we owe the most
challenging formulation of the problem to be dealt with by any philosophers=
of
art:
A poem may be very pretty a=
nd
elegant, but is soul-less. A
narrative has precision and method, but is soul-less. A speech may be good in substance =
and
ornate withal, but is soul-less. Even of women we may say she is pretty, af=
fable,
and refined, but is soul-less. Now
what is meant by ‘soul’(Geist)?R=
21;=
=
[4]=
<= o:p>
I=
ndeed,
this question, posed by Kant, gets to the very soul and core of all aesthet=
ic
reflections East and West. Yet nevertheless the German term ‘Geist’ (for ‘soul’ or
‘spirit’) is hopelessly vague, though highly suggestive.
“What is characteristical of the word,=
221;
comments Henry W. Cassirer (son of Ernest Cassirer), “is its indefiniteness. ‘Geist’ is a quality that is felt rather than
thought. It is strictly
indescribable.”[5]=
Kant speaks of it as “the
animating principle in the mind” and treats it in connection with the
concept of ‘genius’ as “the creative faculty of presenting
aesthetic ideas,” adding “I shall have an opportunity hereafter=
of
dealing more fully with ideas of this kind.”[6]=
Unfortunately never did he have su=
ch an
opportunity. So far we seem to be left in a Kantian labyrinth in the compan=
y of
“aesthetic ideas” as counterpart to “rational ideas”
(the former being inexponsible and the latter,
indemonstrable). It calls for=
a
sort of the Sino-Amearican conjoint solution to=
this
German puzzle. At any rate,
however, the Kantian question provides us with an excellent point of
departure—even an Archimedian point, so to
speak—for comparative studies in aesthetics. Moreover, the Kantian heritage, as=
we
see, proves to be a rich patrimony for Pepper who knows how to stand upon t=
he
shoulders of his predecessors, ancient or modern.
To
begin with, we suggest: Repla=
ce the
phrase ‘soul-less’ with ‘quality-less” and there you
see what a world of difference! It sounds better, more agreeable, and making
more sense. It gets to the whole point of our concern today. I am convinced that
‘quality’ is the core-concept not to the art theories alone, bu=
t to
all practitioners of the art of living wisely (to quote E. A. Burtt).[7]=
2. Pepper in Contemporary Amercian Philosophy and Aesthetics
I=
n The New American Philosophers (196=
8)
Professor Andrew Reck of
Pepper occupies a prominent position in
contemporary American philosophy.
While C. I. Lewis has taught that the immediate quality of all
experience is aesthetic, it was Pepper who, more than any thinker of his
generation, made aesthetics and philosophy of art the technical fields of study they are=
now.
Other thinkers…. were later to make significant contributions to the
area, particularly I. K. Feibleman and Paul Wei=
ss,
but none matches Pepper as aesthetieion and
philosopher of art.”[8]=
U=
ndoubtedly
it is no exaggerating to say that Pepper remains the greatest of
<= o:p>
3. &nbs=
p; A
Marshalling Hand at Work
&=
#8220;When
we come to contextualism, we pass from an analy=
tic
into a synthetic type of theory,”[9]=
thus Pepper declares in World Hypot=
heses.
Though it makes few references to other aesthetic writers, any perceptive m=
ind
who reads between the lines cannot but feel a marshalling hand that is cons=
tantly
at work: It moves, moulds, and melds.
Many of the important discoveries in the field, ancient or modern, a=
re
fused, as it were, in a seamless manner into a coherent whole, a newer and
higher synthesis.
Synthesis—that is the key-note, the tenor of all contextualists.
L=
ike a
work of art itself, Aesthetic Quali=
ty
exemplifies the principle of fusion par
excellence. Worthy insights of alien theories, as well as conflicting v=
iews
and issues of a perennial nature, are skillfully and successfully incorpora=
ted
into his own system, wherein each of them has been assigned its due place a=
nd
proper order. Pepper has an u=
nusual
flaire for things of beauty and value, c=
apable
of appreciating a variety of insights of all major figures from Plato down =
to
John Dewey and Merleau-Ponty, while differing f=
rom
them all in one way or another. He
has a discriminating taste in the superlative. For examples, he has refined Dewey,
criticized Whitehead, rejected Croce, expanded Bergson=
and made wise use of Kant and Hegel.
Unlike Dewey, he has the lingering influences of Hegel and even the
neo-Hegelians expurgated from the contextualistic
positions; unlike Whitehead, he is free from “the logician’s and
the mathematician’s bias”; unlike Croce, he has no fear of
Conflict, Analysis, and Regularity! Uunlike
<= o:p>
4. &nbs=
p; Dewey
and Kant: Two Rich Sources of Inspiration
T=
he
twin-character between Pepper and Dewey is such that what one finds in the
younger sister one finds also in the elder, but not vice versa:
There is very little stated in Aesthetic Quality that is not also
better stated in Art as Experience,=
but the point is merely that many things are not stated in Aesthetic Quality which are said in Art as Experience, and which I believe should not be said by a
pragmatist.”[10]
T=
his,
as any one can perceive, is quite a charge of Dewey’s position in
pragmatism as impure, or hybrid.
Pepper’s humorous and witty remarks of criticism arouses
Dewey’s rather strong reaction.
His is an anti-monopolistic argument for defense, in the form of a m=
ild
but firm and strong protest. =
In his
own words:
Mr. Pepper … makes words like whole, coherence, integration, etc=
., the
ground of his charge, rather than s=
ituation.
His charge of an organicism has something in
common with Russell’s c=
harge
of ‘holism.’ … He assumes that I have combined an anti-
T=
hus,
Dewey goes on to cite for witnesses ancient Greek thinkers, modern organicistic philosophers, organ=
ismic
biologists who are all allowed to use with great freedom the same words wit=
hout
being brought against the same kind of charges as he is. In fact, these words, from the anc=
ient
Greeks down to the modern (Hegelian) school of objective idealism, are
originally “borrowed from esthetic experience” and “then
illegitimately extended until they become categories of the universe at lar=
ge,
endowed with cosmic imports.”
I close by saying that I
don’t believe that any school of philosophy has a monopolistic hold u=
pon
the interpretation of such words as whole,
complete, coherence, integration, etc. … I am not prepared to den=
y to
writers of this school genuine esthetic insights; and in so far as these
insights are genuine, it is the task of empirical prag=
matistic
esthetics to do justice to them without taking over the metaphysical
accretions.[11]
Dewey might have said,
“Mr. Pepper, our positions are far closer than you imagine or put. You
lend me great support when you reverse your previous dictum by saying inste=
ad:
For or=
ganicism
the coherence of feelings is central, while for pragmatism it is secondary =
and
instrumental, … while for pragmatism quality
is central and for organicism only a sort of
corollary.[12]
&=
#8220;(When
I say the same) Pepper accuses me of deserting pragmatism for organicism!”&n=
bsp;
Thus, Dewey sums up his defense with a skillful counterattack. As a matter of fact, these two pos=
itions
are essentially distinct but related; there is no such thing as a neat
bifurcation between them.
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> =
Though
one has every legitimate right and reason to endorse to Andrew J. Reck’s assessment that Pepper’s Aesthetic Quality is found surpass=
ing
Dewey’s Art as Experience in precision
and purity, yet let us not be blinded to the fact that Pepper’s stren=
gth
primarily lies in the clarity of exposition whereas Dewey’s, in the
boldness and massiveness of invention and conception. Methodologically speaking, Pepper =
is
found to be not completely flowless, in that he
should have made better choice of root metaphors for o=
rganicism
and pragmatism. For how can he
justify his claim for maintaining the autonomy of each world hypothesis -- =
formism, mechanism, organicism,
and contexutalism while still keeping one and the same root metaphor
“historic event” for the latter two? Though at times he attempts to
distinguish the two as integrative vs. dispersive, treating them as two spe=
cies
of the same theory. Specifica=
lly he
even calls contextualism a “dispersive=
221; organicisim. Admittedly we accept the common ground f=
or
these two; their key difference nevertheless is a matter of focal
emphasis. One starts with historic event as its root metapho=
r; the
other, situation. One takes quality as central, the other, coherence. Thus, in order to prevent unnecess=
ary
confusions we suggest to keep situa=
tion
as the root metaphor for contextualism and =
historic event (or organism) for organicism, respectiv=
ely. What Samuel Johnson has said about=
the
early poets and their followers in later times applies perfectly well to our
present case: “The first excel in strength and invention, and the lat=
ter
in elegance and refinement.”[13] One characteristic feature of Pepp=
er as
a philosophical writer is his remarkable clarity in exposition and cogency =
in
logical construction. On the =
other
hand we may offer our tribute to the reverse virtues of Dewey by a Chan-like
Chinese proverb: “No big fish in too clear waters!”
T=
he
remarkable thing, however, is that, despite his sharp criticism of and expl=
icit
deviation from Dewey in certain technical aspects methodologically consider=
ed,
Pepper has high admiration for him.
As he told Suncrates in person at SIUC (1970), “If only five c=
lassic
works in the field of aesthetics could be mentioned, Dewey’s Art as Experience should be among =
the
list.” This is quite a
tribute from a philosopher of art in the strictest sense of the term. While Dewey speaks of art as exper=
ience
in general, Pepper would rather have the aesthetic field located in terms of
‘quality’, thus
distinguishing the quantitative from the qualitative (standard) definition =
of
beauty. On the basis of
Dewey’s integrationist insight into art as experience, Pepper further
differentiates ‘quality&#=
8217;
into three dimensions: (1) its intensity (vividness); (2) its extensity
(spread); and (3) its depth (social significance), distinctively paralleling
Irwin Edman’s four-dimensional view of ar=
t as
(l) the intensification, (2) the clarification, (3) the interpretation, and=
(4)
the unification of experience, as advanced in Arts and the Man. The whole book of Aesthetic Quality is devoted to a systematical elaboration of s=
uch
a three-dimensional criterion of be=
auty
as enhanced quality.
A work of art ought to pass this strict criterion before it can be called t=
ruly
great; highest beauty has to meet all these three standards. So advocates Pepper. (For details, see Aesthetic Quality.)
E=
vidently,
Dewey remains for him one rich source of inspiration, the other being Kant.=
F=
or
Pepper, no less suggestive than Dewey is Kant. He has made full use of the Kantian
heritage. To mention a few: (=
l) the
Kantian notions of perception, apperception and idea of constituting the th=
ree
steps of relevant (imaginative) construction; (2) the Kantian theme of the =
“happy
relation” (harmony) of Imagination and Understanding as productive of
aesthetic ideas; (3) the Kantian contention that in aesthetic activities
Understanding is at the service of Imagination whileas=
in intellectual activities the relation is reversed; and (4) the Kantian
contrast of the Conceptual to the Non-Conceptual Columns, taken emphaticall=
y,
but not exclusively.
S=
uch
important insights in the Kantian tradition, unfortunately, are deplorably
ignored by Croce and Bergson alike, yet they le=
ad
Pepper to exclaim “Eureka” in terms of fusion! A contextuali=
st
is a fusionist, nay, even a com-fusionist.=
Of particular importance for Pepper are (3) and (4). (3) is a matter of primary
considerations; (4) is far more enlightening as schematized in the followin=
g:
<= o:p>
|
Feeling, or Non-Conceptual |
Concept
or Conceptual |
|
(a)
inexponsible (b)
indemonstrable (a)
symbolic |
(a)
exponsible (b)
demonstrable (3c
schematic (or signal) |
<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>
By
‘inexponsible’ is meant ‘inca=
pable
of being reduced to concepts’ and by ‘indemonstrable’ is
meant ‘incapable of being proved by concept.” The Non-Conceptual Column correspo=
nds to
three types of knowledge (each being a form of a synthetic a priori Judgments): (l) aesethetic
(aesthetic ideas); (2) moral (rational ideas); and (3) religious (symbolic
knowledge). The scope of know=
ledge
taken in its inclusive sense is co-extensive with the entire realm of human
experience. On the other hand=
, the
Conceptual Column represents only one type of knowledge, namely, the
theoretical arrived conceptually (or relationally, intellectually, etc.).
W=
hat is
of crucial importance in the above schematic representation is the relation=
ship
between these two Columns as emphatic, not exclusive. Croceans and Bergsonians have missed this whole point, hence, one
opposes intuition to concept; the other insists to have concept brushed
aside! To say that the aesthe=
tic
judgment is non-conceptual does not imply that it is completely free from
concepts; it simply signifies that the distinctive character of such a judg=
ment
is not conceptual; for in aesthetic experience no primacy is allowed to con=
cept
(Understanding); but to feeling (Imagination). We remain thus immune from any sor=
t of
bifurcations. Such an
interpretation is warranted by hints derived from the Kantian contention st=
ated
above in (3); its consequents are so enlightening that many of the Kantian
oppositions such as knowledge vs. faith; phenomena vs. noumena;
the sensible vs. the supersensible; in short, concept vs. feeling, must be =
seen
in a new light as contrast which, for Whitehead, is a mode of synthesis and,
for Pepper, a mode of fusion. The original Kantian epoch-making statement
“Deny knowledge in order to make room for faith” must make room=
for
the revised version: “Deny knowledge in order to make room for
feeling”! For faith is =
but a
specific form of feeling, religious, moral, or cognitive.
I=
n line
with the above elucidation we are readily led not only to the realization of
the epistemological imports of aesthetics, that what can be known can also =
be
felt, but that what can be felt cannot be merely known, i.e.,
conceptually. But, more impor=
tantly,
we are led to the realization of the primacy of the experiential — a
grand theme shared in common almost by all major philosophers of the contem=
porary
age: Whitehead, Dewey, Heidegger, Michael Polanyi,
Pepper, ... etc. The main
contention of Popper’s Concep=
t and
Quality is based on the same insight.&=
nbsp;
It sheds much light on the moot issues in value-theories in general.
What is value?—but a quality felt, a quality that arouses our admirat=
ion
and appreciation. For Pepper,
quality emerges from the dialectical interplay of the intuitive and the
intellectual through fusion. It is treated in connection with its co-relati=
onal
concept of texture. To Pepper, as to posterity, Kant means far more than he
himself could ever dream of!
<= o:p>
5. &nbs=
p; Presuppositions
of the Contextualistic Theory of Art
F=
or a
fuller justification of Popper’s aesthetic theory we are referred to =
his
metaphysics as outlined in World
Hypotheses. Fundamentally
considered, the affinity between Pepper and the Chinese aesthetic views is
deeply seated in the congeniality of their metaphysics and, moreover, in the
kinship of their temper of mind.
Obviously, it is out of place in this short study to get into any
in-depth discussion of the metaphysics of either, it suffices to mention, en passant, chiefly for comparativa purposes: (I) The root metaphor for contextualism is ‘event’ or ‘histor=
ical
event’ — an event alive with its present or, as with Dewey,
‘situation’; (2) The four fundamental categories in contextualism are change
and novelty, quality and texture=
(two
pairs of co-relatives); (3) one of the basic presuppositions of contextualism is the belief that no event, if put int=
o its
proper context, is lacking in quality; (4)=
‘quality’ as a categoreal co=
ncept
cannot be defined, nor treated apart from its co-relative concept
‘texture’; and (5) However, it can be interpreted and shown thu=
s:
“The quality of a given event is its intuited wholeness or total
character; the texture is the details and relations which make up that
character or quality.”[14] For example, the quality of any pi=
ece of
music is something that emerges out as a result of the fusion of all strain=
s as
a whole.
<= o:p>
6. The
Chinese and Contextualistic Temper of Mind
If
aesthetics presupposes metaphysics, we must add, metaphysics presupposes a
certain temper of mind. In fa=
ct,
these three form a sort of trinity. Professor BahmR=
17;s
grand theme that aesthetics implies and is implied by metaphysics is best
exemplified in the case of contextualism and the
entire Chinese philosophical tradition, though the same can be said of many
other systems such as Plato, Plotinus, Kant, He=
gel,
Schopenhauer, Whitehead, Dewey, Heidegger, Bergson,
…etc. In all such cases a given metaphysical system is inspired by
aesthetic visions and insights. Nay, it is, in the final analysis, but an
aesthetics in disguise! It is
interesting to note that in spite of all his “passionate skeptism” Bertrand Russell “frankly confe=
sses”
that his “motives for several faiths are of an aesthetic, not of logi=
c,
sort.”[15],
N=
owhere
else is Pepper found more congenial with the Chinese way than in his contextualistic temper of mind, and nowhere else has =
he
more tellingly betrayed (revealed) such a temper of mind than in Principles of Art Appreciation, wh=
ere it
is stated:
For to be dogmatic in our perceptions is to =
shut
ourselves off from an enormous amount of enjoyment in the perceptions of ot=
her
men and other cultures, and from an enormous amount of true understanding of
the world in which we live. ...
And in painting we gain in the understanding=
of
nature by relaxing our dogmatism and our provincial certainties, and
considering the insights of all these sensitive perceivers of nature, so al=
so
in philosophy.[16]
I=
n Aesthetic Quality he gives the war=
ning
to bad critics: “To jud=
ge a
work bad, a critic must be big enough to see all around it and all through
it.” The attitude herein recommended for art critics and philosophers=
in
general is an aesthetic attitude, the habit we are encouraged to cultivate =
is
an art habit which, for Whitehead, is the habit of enjoying vivid values.
T=
he
whole secret of the Chinese way of doing philosophy is best revealed by
Professor Thomé H. Fang, when he declalres: “The
Chinese are artists before they become philosophers.”=
[18] It is a bold statement that epitom=
izes Zhuangzi’s vision: “A sage is one who, on=
the
basis of the cosmic beauty, is enabled to perceive and comprehend the Reason
inherent in all things” (and the meanings thereof). Both confirm the insightful observ=
ation
of George Rowley “The Chinese way of looking at life was not primarily
through religion, or philosophy, or science, but through art.”[19] In other words, it adopts an
aesthetically-oriented approach and attitude towards life and all
life-activities. Such an
attitude proves to be most
congenial to the contextualistic temper of mind=
on
the ground of trans- or meta-philosophical considerations. Their kinship in
mentality, in temper of mind, nourished in what Professor Northrop calls
“the immediately apprehended aesthetic continuum,” is best
reflected in their metaphysics — their world views or, as with Pepper,
their world hypotheses. The <=
span
class=3DSpellE>contextualiatic formulation of change and novelty,=
quality and texture as fundamentals sounds like a pocket edition of the
fundamental principles of Chinese philosophy of creativity (I-Ching or The Book of Creativity). It is a p=
ocket
edition de lux=
e
version of the I-Ching. In both cases we can meaningfully =
talk
about the metaphysical foundation of aesthetics as well as the aesthetical
foundation of metaphysics. In=
fact,
we have good reason to claim that at bottom for the Chinese, as for the
<= o:p>
7. &nb=
sp; Fundamentals
of Chinese Metaphysics
As
said before, both the contextualist and the Chi=
nese
world hypotheses stand as colossal exemplar of the grand theme of the mutual
implication of aesthetics and metaphysics. Turning now to the metaphysical
consideration, we may highlight certain essential features of the Chinese v=
iew
such that one can easily spot the affinity as well as difference between the
two systems. In the light of =
Pepper’s
root-metaphor method, the Chinese world hypothesis can be shown to be a
root-metaphor philosophy, par excel=
lence. It is called “creative
humanism” grounded in and generated by the root-metaphor of
“creative act” or “co-creative act.” It is a humanism grounded on Creat=
ivity
as the ultimate ultimacy which accounts for the=
unity
of heaven, man, and earth (nature) in the process of the cosmic transformat=
ion
and change.
T=
he
spirit of Chinese tradition of creative humanism or, what amounts to the sa=
me, creativism, can be summed up in a ninefold
characterization : (l) process view in cosmology; (2) value-centric view in
ontology, implying a functional view of substance; (3) trans-dualism in
methodology; (4) experientialism in epistemology: (5) pragmatism in philoso=
phy
of action, emphasizing on unity of theory and practice; (6) existentialism =
in
philosophy as elucidation of Esixtenz or =
human
reality; (7) pan-pene-theism in religion; (8) v=
ivid qualityism in aesthetics; and (9) empathy and-sympathy
theory in ethics.
<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> Co=
ntextualism
and the Chinese position have at least (1), (3), (4), (5) and (8) in common=
.
A=
s to
the formulation of metaphysical principles or categore=
al
concepts, the Chinese thinkers inspired by Zhuangzi
tend more towards Pepper than Whitehead with the latter’s
logician’s and mathematician’s bias cut off. The above quoted
statement by Zhuangzi can be hermeneutically
interpreted in our modern terminology thus: “A philosopher is one who=
, on
the basis of the pervasive aesthetic quality in nature, is enabled to const=
ruct
a world hypothesis in terms of which every item of our life experience can =
be
interpreted.” Basically,
metaphysics, as Pepper sees it, is =
an art
of interpretation. We hav=
e no
use for the Whiteheadian criteria of the
‘logical’ and ‘neccessary.=
217; Thus by revising the Whiteheadian
view of speculative philosophy, we may justly affirm that metaphysics consi=
sts
in the endeavour to form an incomplete (open),
interdependent, and coherent scheme of general ideas, i.e., notions of the
utmost generalities, in terms of which every item of our life experience ca=
n be
interpreted.
P=
rofessor
fang’s formulation of the Chinese metaphysical principles in two vers=
ions
fits in with the requirement of adequacy very well. His earlier, fuller account lists =
six
principles: (l) Life, (2) Love, (3) Creative Advance, (4) Primordial Unity,=
(5)
Equilibrium And harmony, and (6) Extensive Connection. These six principles=
are
later condensed into four: (1) Life, (2) Extensive connection, (3) Creative
Creativity, and (4) Creative Life as Process of Value-Actualization. Each of these categories is furthe=
r differentiated
into certain sub-categories, such as Emergence of Novelty under the Princip=
le
of Life, Communion through Contrast under the Principle of Love, etc. (Not =
to
be elaborated here.)
<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Comparing the above formulation with
Pepper’s four principles of c=
hange
and novelty, quality and texture=
, we
will notice some important parallel insights, such as change and novelty =
for
Life, Creative Advance, Emergence of Novelty; and texture for Process of Value-Actualization, Extensive Connectio=
n,
etc. The concept of fusion and its Chinese counterpart, equilibrium and
harmony, are basic and central in both systems. It is the core-principle, an
aesthetic principle applied to metaphysics, that works wonders in human as =
well
as cosmic creations.
<= o:p>
8. The Chinese View of Art: A 3-Dimens=
ional
Characterization
I=
n as
much as the Chinese aesthetical principles are expanded into a system of
metaphysical thought centering on the unity of the personal life and the
cosmic, we are led to the realization of the intimate relationship of art a=
nd
man. What is art? As formulated by Professor Fang in=
Creativity in Man and Nature,
“However varied and colorful has been the conception of art in
art-history, the business of art which is fine in nature, as of all creative
activities, is to broaden, to deepe=
n, and
to elevate the horizons of all human experience in infinite dimensions.=
”=
[20] Such a definition of art, based on
insights derived from rich sources in the Chinese tradition, such as
Confucianism, Daoism, and even the Chinese Mahayana Buddhism (including the
Chan or Zen Sect), is intended for the meeting of East and West on the grou=
nd
of art. The emphasis on ̵=
6;elevation’
is owing to the Chinese philosophical anthropology and psychology, the
height-psychology, so to speak, in the Confucian, Daoi=
st,
and Buddhist traditions. Noti=
ce its
affinity with Dewey and Pepper — Professor Fang, having been taught by
Dewey only for one year in the undergraduate, proves to be the greatest
spokesman for Chinese philosophy in the 20th century. Not only is
there a Deweyan tincture in the choice of words=
like
‘experience’ in the three-dimensional view of the function of a=
rt
parallels so closely to Pepper’s formulation of a three-dimensional
criterion of beauty in terms of the intensity, extensity, and depth of qual=
ity
as counterparts at least, that one cannot fail to perceive the amazing
similarity between them. We m=
ay
well take the above definition as representing the Chinese creative humanis=
tic
view of art. It cannot be put better.
<= o:p>
9. &nbs=
p; Pepper’s
Appreciation of Chinese Art and Aesthetics
But we learn very little from him on painting; he lived a=
t a
time when the art of painting had not fully developed in China. But he left a sublime line on
“art” in general – a line that may just entitle him as a
forerunner of contextualism in aesthetics, to s=
ay the
least. His consummate stateme=
nt can
be hermeneutically paraphrased thus: “Just as in the case of embroide=
ry,
quality is a matter of proper context.” (e.g., the silk groundwork).<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Similarly, Pepper’s contextuali=
sm
as an adequate world hypothesis is so suggestively based on and generated by
the metaphor “texture” – one burrowed from the craftworks=
of
weaving, like embroidery. In =
The Book of Odes it is admiringly =
sung
of the Lady Zhuang Jiang of
the State of Wei:
=
“Her fascinating smiles, how dimpling they
are!
=
Her
beautiful eyes, how beaming they are!
=
….
=
All
shining forth from the original state of her person.”
Zixia (intimate name: =
Shang),
one of Kongzi’s most studius
and scholarly disciples, who afterwards became a distinguished teacher-scho=
lar
of the Master’s thought for his age, asked, “What does it
signify?”
“Just as in the case of embroide=
ry,
quality depends on the silk groundwork as context.”
“Does this apply in the case of Rites and
Propriety as cultural refinement?”&n=
bsp;
“Shang, you j=
ust
get me stimulated (with your feedback)!&nb=
sp;
Only with persons like you am I able to discuss odes and poetry!R=
21;=
[22]
=
I= t is no exaggerating to say that for Kongzi, as for Pep= per, their common root metaphor “texture” is derived from the same k= ind of aesthetic experience as an inexhaustible source of inspiration. Yet, it = is mainly the Daoist spirit that has more inspired= the entire tradition of Chinese art, especially in the landscape painting. Much of the Chinese aesthetic insi= ghts and thoughts are embodied in discourses on painting which are, as a rule, p= ut in the epigrammatic and even fragmentary forms, seldom systematized until S= hi Tao, the most original creative artist and the most trenchant, profound thi= nker on art experiences.
Shi =
Tao
– a royal offspring of the overthrown Ming Dyans=
ty
in 17th century China, rescued and brought up as a Chan monk in =
the
Buddhist temple, nourished for over 20 years in the sc=
enicl
atmosphere of the Great Yellow Mountain area -- opens a new horizon in
aesthetic explorations ever since the doctrine of six essentials of painting
laid out by Xie He (Hsieh Ho) in the 5th,
and Jing Hao in the=
10th
centuries. Xie
He formulates “vividness of tone and atmosphere” (counterpart f=
or
Pepper’s “vividness of quality”) as the master principle =
for
art creation and art appreciation that has dominated Chinese aesthetic thou=
ght
for fourteen centuries. But h=
ow to
optimize the vividness of aesthetic quality remains a question unsettled un=
til
Shi Tao who gives it a most thoroughgoing and penetrating treatment. Shi Tao’s Sayings on Painting is grounded in his cosmic monism. The great artist, in his phrase, is
“spokesman for the great mountains and rivers,” that is, “=
;for
the creative force, the exuberant vitality, of the whole cosmic life.”=
; He
has reduced “qi-jun” to
“qi”. His celebra=
ted
“Docttine of Yi-hua<=
/span>”
– a terminology that almost defies literal renderings in any Western
languages – can be roughly put as “Painting by the One,” =
for
lack of a better term. He is =
the
rarest exemplar of the combined persoages of the
consummate artist and philosopher China has ever produced. A comprehensive treatment of his
position in art of painting, and in the art of living wisely as well, is too
profound, subtle, and complicated to be attempted here. It suffices to point out, in passi=
ng,
that he is the epitome of the consummate unification of the Confucian, Daoist, and Buddhist insights and wisdom in the East.=
On the other hand, he is found to =
have
anticipated Pepper by about three hundred years in the discovery of what he
calls the “Secrets of Painting” as consisting in nothing more t=
han
the principle of “fusion of the aesthetical with the conceptual”
– an insight unmistakably indicative of Pepper’s works from Aesthetic Quality (1937) to Basis of Criticism in ther
Arts (1947) and Concept and Qua=
lity
(1969).
I=
n this
connection, we are further delighted to find that Pepper has demonstrated
superior understanding and appreciation of Chinese art and aesthetics, by
grasping the secrets in the use of brush-work and the application of the
principle of “fusion of the opposites” as the open sesame. Indeed, the concept of ‘R=
21;qi-yun” cannot be fully appreciated apart from
acquaintance with the Chinese mastery of the brush work. Inspired and encouraged by his fat=
her, a
“noted portrait painter” in Boston, Pepper is among the very fe=
w of
Western aestheticians and philosophers who in their youth have the good for=
tune
to have visited and studied in Japan so as to get themselves basically well
acquainted with the Oriental brush work.
Naturally, he gets quite to the point whe=
n he
says on this subject:
The Orientals are particularly deft with ...
narrative movement of lines. =
The
flexible brush they habitually use is the most sensitive of all drawing
instruments to the movements and emotions of the hand. It spreads in thickness with the
pressure of excitement, it thins to a thread at the thought of tenderness...
The Chinese and the Japanese have much to teach the West on the use of line=
s.=
[23]
L=
ater,
at the 1969 East-West Philosophers’ Conference on “The Nature a=
nd
Function of Symbolism of Art in East and West” (dedicated to Pepper
exclusively), to the question of how far Oriental culture and art can be
understood and appreciated by an outsider, he replied readily: “Quite far. Only with a litt=
le
sympathetic willingness to understand.”[24] His grasp of the Chinese art and
aesthetics testifies to what he recommended as the sound approach. A percep=
tive
mind as he is, he grasped the spirit of Chinese art better than most of the
Western scholars who understand the language. For example, the concept of
“qi-yun sheng=
-dong”
has given rise to more than eighteen translations, none of which is truly
correct, and some are just wide off the mark, such as the French translatio=
n by
Ralphel Petrucci, &=
#8220;La
consonance de le esprit engenre le mouvement de la vie.” Even Lin Yuta=
ng’s
rendering of it as “lifelike tone and atmosphere” still falls a=
bort
of the original. It is none other that the counterpart notion to PepperR=
17;s
“vividness of quality” as applied to the art of painting. In the original Chinese it signifi=
es
“vividness of quality” as a result -- through fusion -- of
“force (qi) and “harmony” (
10. =
Summary
and Reflections
P=
epper
grasped “qi-yun” in terms of
“quality” and he fully realized that quality is a matter of fus=
ion
out of which emerges the total characters. “The quality of a given ev=
ent
is its intuited whole or total character; the texture is the details and
relations which make up that character or quality.” In the light of
“union of the opposites” as the guiding principle in art, he
interpreted “qi” (abbreviated from
“qi-yun”) as “emotional and
intellectual balance” and exclaimed, “If this is qi, we could do with a lot of qi=
in America!”[25]
O=
f the
Six Essentials formulated by Xie He only the fi=
rst
principle of “vividness of qi-yun” =
is the
criterion on the basis of the intuited whole or total character, the rest a=
re
details with the technical aspects that will bring about such a total
effect. They are: (1) creating
vividness of tone and atmosphere; (2) building structure through brush work;
(3) depicting the form of things as they are; (4) appropriate coloring; (5)
composition; (6) transcribing and copying (model works). (2) suggests the i=
dea
of “the bone-like structural use of brush-work.” Pepper’s grasp of “
T=
he Six
Essentials formulated by Jing Hao
of the tenth century include (1) qi and (2)
Contextualism=
is the only theory that takes the concept of fusion seriously. In other theories it is interprete=
d away
as confusion, failure to discriminate, muddle-headedness. Here it has cosmic dignity.=
[26]
H=
ere
Pepper is speaking no less proudly of contextualism
as a whole. With a contextualist eye he catches immediately the spirit of
Chinese art. The main thrusts=
of
his insightful “Review” can be summed up succinctly as follows:=
(=
l) for
lack of a one-to-one-correspondence between Chinese and Western terms, he
recommends sympathetic insight, adjustment, and patience for the sake of pr=
oper
appreciation;
(=
2)
since “qi-yun” is the principle whi=
ch is
the source of all other principles of art, it deserves particular attention=
s;
(=
3) it
combines “Confucian conformity, moderation, and lucidity with Daosit freedom, naturalness (spontaneity), and myster=
y.”
There is clearly nothing just like it in our (Western) culture. It is neith=
er
mysticism purely, nor naturalism, but their unions;
(=
4)
this artistic purity consists in a union of ecstacy
and convention, the personal and the Impersonal, idealism and naturalism, m=
an
and nature;
(=
5) the
saying on the union of individuality and rule is a maxim so simple and comp=
lete
that it could hardly be better said;
(=
6)
this principle goes deep into Chinese life;
(=
7) in
China formal beauty is not isolated but resides in the whole content, hence,
instead of beauty or esthetic values, the Chinese speak of the spirit, or <=
span
class=3DSpellE>qi;
(=
8)
this is not mysticism, nor art-for-art’s-sake-ism, nor yet organicism. It
is emotional and intellectual balance (qualityism). If this is qi=
,
we could do with a lot of qi in America;
(=
9) the
Chinese use of the voids (wu, unpainted painting) is generally misunderstood by the
West as “negative space”— a misnomer. Nothing could be more positive;
(=
10)
finally, the virtue and value of comparative studies in art (as in other
areas): Western painting is itself enriched through discriminating the
difference from Chinese painting.
Either by learning something from it in which the Chinese have gone
beyond the West, such as the love of unbalance, irregularity, working out
rhythm in visual arts; incorporating time into painting, etc., or to become
aware of things in Western art which we may have missed or taken too much f=
or
granted and which stand out as a result of contrast, such as the
“moving-focus” principle, so typical in the Chinese painting, is
not much developed by Western art.
P=
epper’s
words equally apply to Chinese artists and philosophers of art. For Instances, the concept of the =
mean,
or equilibrium and harmony, is a notion that has been taken too much for
granted by the Chinese that they seem to speak of it as commonplace. By contrast to Pepper’s
thoroughgoing treatment of “restraint” as the marshalling princ=
iple
for controlling contrast, gradation, and thematic variation, they will
re-consider its value. This principle of restraint, as Professor Hahn choos=
es
to call it, is the principle of optimal effect free from any negative
connotation involved in the term ‘restraint’. Nothing could be =
more
positive, to quote Pepper. For it indicates the axiological mean (Nicolai Hartmann), the omega-point in any given event=
or
situation. It is simply perfe=
ction
perfected, consummation consummated.
Another important lesson the Chinese can learn from Western aestheti=
cians
is the importance of theorization and systematization of great visions and
insights in which the Chinese creative mind abounds and excels. Pepper can be held up as a model f=
or
synthesizer and systematizer in this and other
related areas, too. It takes =
China
several thousand years to produce one Shi Tao. Most of the Chinese aesthetic insi=
ghts
are devoted to discourses on painting, and surely art is not confined to
paintings alone. How to develop, to generalize, to elevate “Principle=
s of
Painting” into an adequate theory of aesthetics deserves serious
consideration and persistent endeavors.&nb=
sp;
“qi-yun sheng=
-dong”
(氣韻生動),
though a master principle of painting, may not serve as well for literary
criticism (when applied to such great works as War and Peace, Brother =
Karamazov,
The Magic Mountain, etc.). But “vividness of quality=
221;
as “vividness of qi” will.
<= o:p>
<= o:p>
&nb=
sp; [*]
Originally presented to=
Section
of Aesthetics, the 11th Inter-American Congress of Philosophy
celebrating the 500th Anniversary of Columbus’ Arrival in
America, held at University of Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico, November
10-15, 1985, chaired by the late Professor Lewis E. Hahn; herein published =
for
the first time in a revised and expanded form by our conjoint efforts
celebrating Hahn’s Centennial Anniversary (2008).
[1]=
Stephen C. Pepper, “Review of=
Principles of Chinese Painting by =
George
Rowley,” Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research, Vol. 9 (December, 1948), 329-331.
=
=
[2]=
Cf. Jian Yihan, A
study of the Sayings on Painting by Shi Tao (Taipei: The Chines
Culture University Press, 1982, First Edition; 1987, Second Edition), p. 164.
[4]
[10] Stephen C. Pepper, “Some Ques=
tions
on Dewey’s Esthetics,” Paul A. Schilpp
(ed.), the Philosophy of John Dewey=
(New
York The Tudor Publishing Co., 1951), p. 372.
[13] Cf. Samuel Johnson, The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abys=
sinia,
Chapter 10, selected in L. I. Bredvold, A. =
D. McKillop and L. Whitney (eds.), Eighteenth Century of Poetry and Prose (New York: The Ronald Press, 1939), p. 706.
[16]<= span lang=3DEN-US> Stephen C. Pepper, Principles of Art Appreciation (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1949), pp. 249-240.
[17]<=
span
lang=3DEN-US> Cf. IThe Analects, Book XIII, S. =
23; Doctrine of Equilibrium and Harmony, S. 15, etc.
|
- 6 -<=
/span> |
Comprehensive Harmony: A
Bulletin of Comparative Philosophy and Culture, No. I, 2009
|
- 1 -<=
/span> |
S=
uncrates, Stephen C. Pepper and the Chinese =
Philosophy
of Art