Aesthetics v symbolism (1 Viewer)

Hi,
can anyone clarify for me when a wildlife artwork ceases to be an aesthetic representation and instead becomes symbolic?

I've begun studying aesthetics of wildlife and am gathering examples of Australian native bird artworks from national museum and gallery collections. I want to classify which are purely aesthetic works and which are symbolic.

But the literature I've read on aesthetics (Roger Scruton and others) indicates that among other things, to appreciate something aesthetically it must have the right fit with its environment. If we're talking about wildlife aesthetics then that would mean the wildlife would fit with its habitat, ie it's a real living bird in a real living environment

So, I'm wondering whether you can actually create an artwork that is purely aesthetic. Or by the very nature of it having been created by a human, does the representation take on a symbolic meaning becaues of the context, history, artist, etc?

Any thoughts anyone?

Thanks!

genkigarden said:

Hi,
can anyone clarify for me when a wildlife artwork ceases to be an aesthetic representation and instead becomes symbolic?

I've begun studying aesthetics of wildlife and am gathering examples of Australian native bird artworks from national museum and gallery collections. I want to classify which are purely aesthetic works and which are symbolic.

But the literature I've read on aesthetics (Roger Scruton and others) indicates that among other things, to appreciate something aesthetically it must have the right fit with its environment. If we're talking about wildlife aesthetics then that would mean the wildlife would fit with its habitat, ie it's a real living bird in a real living environment

So, I'm wondering whether you can actually create an artwork that is purely aesthetic. Or by the very nature of it having been created by a human, does the representation take on a symbolic meaning becaues of the context, history, artist, etc?

Any thoughts anyone?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

as an artist I don't think we care or even think that way...we want our art to communicate the fleeting experience or emotion . So some choose a symbolic meaning...look at Morris Graves crows and some choose the most realistic rendition possible, say Harris-Ching or Brenders, and some realism that has a symbolic purpose, Chris Bacon, and some rendering that is meant to be representational but freely done...Lars Jonsson... As a painter there is no way not to be abstract even if done to the letter of photo realism....real life is 3-d and paintings are 2d so it is always an interpretation, and abstraction, and essentially lies and trickery to get you to see and accept a 3-d world on a flat surface.

I suppose in order to decide which works are which, you must adhere to strict criteria in defining 'aesthetic' and 'symbolic'. Colleen is right that wildlife art doesn't really think about such things, the driving force behind our interpretations come from nature, full stop, we paint the 'what' without worrying about the 'why' but as you've put the question on the table, it seems an interesting topic of discussion so here are a few of my off-the-top-of-my-head ramblings.

1) symbolic and aesthetic aren't mutually exclusive (not sure if by trying to categorise the pictures you must decide if it's one or the other).
2) if you have a scientific description of aesthetic as belonging in an environment, beware of the more common use of something that is 'pleasing to the eye'. I put virtually all of my work in its environment, but I don't care if it pleases or not. Sometimes, I try to remove pleasing elements.
3) Symbols are not always crude representations, if you look at religious art for example, the same symbolic meanings can be conveyed in a highly detailed large-scale work, or a few lines.

So I would suggest - knowing that I probably have missed the point anyway ;-), to refine the definitions which you will use, and perhaps avoid categorising the pictures too much, rather discuss the presence and perhaps absence of aesthetics and symbolic meaning in each one.

I agree with what others have said. I think a problem with how you're defining symbolism and aesthetics is that you seem to be suggesting that they somehow inhere in the images or art objects themselves rather than emerging out of their relations with those that perceive them. Aesthetics, famously, can be 'in the eye of the beholder' and also tends to involve an ideal or even moral component, i.e. it's about how something ought to look, or (to take that environmental definition you mention) about where birds ought to be situated. Symbolism is, by definition, about interpretation. Both to understand what a symbol represents and even to recognise it as a symbol requires certain interpretive habits on the part of the observer. You could argue, I suppose, that an artist might create a picture as representing certain ideas that they think a certain audience will understand, in other words they self-consciously create it as symbolic, but this still requires a particular audience with a certain sensibility.

Sounds like an interesting project you have going though - I'd like to hear more about it.

A subject right up my street, Genkigarden!

And I agree that there can never be one without the other in any piece of art - as observers we will always attach the 'symbolic' to the aesthetic - as birders looking at birds in art it's even more impossible not to.

I refer you to this old thread I started some time ago now.

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=117873&highlight=zen+birding

H

Hi, thanks for all your replies. I clearly need to clarify which definitions I'm using for aesthetic and symbolic, which I will, but before I do here's an example of the kind of dilemma I'm facing:

Imagine a friend goes to Australia for the first time and knows nothing about the country or its birds. They want to buy you a present and see this lovely tea towel which they purchase.

Question: why are these particular birds on the tea towel? Because they're aesthetically pleasing or because they symbolise Australia?

Consider this: the tea-towel in question sells thousands of units, so manufacturers keep using the same design. But what came first the attractive (= successful) design or the symbolic meaning of the individual species?

Question #2: would the tea-towel sell as well if it was covered in little brown jobs?

Yes, I think your personal criteria are what we need to focus on in this discussion - as it's clear you have to satisfy those in your topic. To answer your direct question; there's no doubt the images on the tea-towel have been chosen for their 'attractiveness' (and, more distinctly, because of the print-process involved in producing this item) and also because they are 'typical' Australian birds - this offers purchasers the bright and colourful object and also reinforces their personal self as being 'Australian' or having connections to that place. No - little brown jobs would have had a much more limited appeal.
We have a similar scenario with Puffins - they communicate anthropomorphic ideas and are also brightly coloured (well, their bills and eyes are, anyway). Every painting I've ever done of a puffin has sold - in fact I could probably make a living out of painting just this one species!
Bit pressed for time, but I'll pop back later.

Perhaps we should consider not only the different definition of aesthetics and symbolism, but its origin. The symbolic precedes the aesthetics since this last one is a philosophical concept and symbols originated as an attempt to explain the unknown, for example in the cave paintings. The symbol is the source of almost all religions, as a complex system to link the physical and the metaphysical world. In the Christian religion the symbol was regarded as a link between similar things, what unites them, and a confrontational term was chosen as representative of what separates things: the “diavolo” (the devil).
Birds have been an important part of the set of symbols in mythology, -eagle, dove, pelican, crane, etc .- and is from the late sixteenth century when its aesthetic representation begins to overcome or live with the symbolic .
I had the opportunity to conduct a study on the presence of birds in the works of the Prado Museum http://www.seo.org/sala_detalle.cfm?idSala=5137 in Madrid, and the Baroque is the time where it emphasizes the production of works where the birds shared aesthetic and symbolic - works of Franz Snyders, Brueghel , Bassano, etc .- At the same time you can find the works of Ferdinand Hamilton in which aesthetic values predominate over the symbolic (i.e. Four species of vultures). The contemporary art provides many examples of symbolic or conceptual representation of the birds (Portrait of a Bald Eagle by Wolfgang Koethe, Picasso's doves, Dali's swans and other animals, etc.), as well as clear aesthetic productions (Bateman, Brenders, etc.)
It is a fascinating subject about which we could talk for hours.

. . . indeed. And I start to think of Ray Harris-Ching's work - especially the taxidermy pieces, where the approach and technique could be said to be of the purely aesthetic, or technical, however the concept of depicting specimens which are clearly derived from collections of dead birds still with their taxonomical classification tags attached to their legs, represent very powerful ideas.

In the case of the tea towel….I believe the ‘attractive’ design came first for obvious reasons….ie. it would potentially be a good seller…[trading on folks love/affinity for parrots and of bright colours in general]…similar to Tims puffins….

Yes the parrots are representative…tho not necessarily symbolic of Australia….[I wouldn’t have thought]…?

Interesting subject....:cat:

The example you give is a good one, and (as is often the case) these things get a bit more interesting when they're grounded in concrete examples. I suspect that trying to figure out whether art objects are 'aesthetic' or 'symbolic' is not likely to lead too far, because your investigation will get so bound up in how we might define those terms. As I hinted at earlier, I think you need to talk to people as much as looking at art and trying to work out what it's supposed to be about. I would want to ask people about the teatowel, what they like about it, what they think it shows, what it's going to remind them of, what they'll do with it (dry the dishes maybe?), how it connects with their experience in Australia etc. It's only once you start asking people those sorts of questions that you can make progress. That's quite possibly your plan anyway!

You might find this article quite helpful, although it's not specifically about art:
http://www.envplan.com/abstract.cgi?id=d71j
It's a bit easier to follow than the abstract suggests!

username said:

Yes the parrots are representative…tho not necessarily symbolic of Australia….[I wouldn’t have thought]…?

Interesting subject....:cat:

Click to expand...

I kind of agree with you on that. Birds often have associations that are what they call 'indexical' rather than symbolic i.e. they are signs through direct associations (often causal associations) rather than through the more arbitrary connections of symbols that are reliant on habits of interpretation. An indexical sign might be the song of the Cuckoo representing spring, in which case there's a quite direct contextual association. A symbol would be something like a dove representing peace. The birds on the teatowel represent Australia at least in part because they live there. There's a direct indexical association between bird and place.

Here's a related question I think: do we only see art, or aesthetics, in its proper context? For instance is a world-renowned violinist completely ignored if he plays in a subway station? Context often seems to be everything.

So you then might ask are people buying tea towels as souvenirs to prove they've been somewhere, as something practical that also reminds them of their trip, or as art? My guess is that the tea towel example really confuses the question because it also brings in the separate question of souvenirs and mementos.

solitaryVSong said:

My guess is that the tea towel example really confuses the question because it also brings in the separate question of souvenirs and mementos.

Click to expand...

Quite.

Often such things are bought as presents for others. Necessarily cheap repesentations/indexes/symbols, what you will, of the country visited.

Though, of course, momentos are symbols themselves.


We had a wonderful TV programme last night: 'Hidden Treasures of Australian Art', Gryff Rhys Jones presenting from Queensland and the Torres Straight, which focussed on early face masks, rock paintings, canoe ornaments etc.

These art pieces were originally symbolic in the true sense - though not without their aesthetic qualities. Also featuring on the programme were modern works by Torres Straight peoples' decendents: these too had symbolic meaning - though the aesthetics were obvious - in fact some of the most beautiful pieces of art I could wish to see.

I suppose you could separate (should you wish) these disperate pieces according to their intended use, though, still, I would defy anyone not to see the aesthetic in one symbolic piece and vice versa.

can anyone clarify for me when a wildlife artwork ceases to be an aesthetic representation and instead becomes symbolic?

Click to expand...

In pure terms it is symbolic first, ie no matter how perfectly depicted, like Brenders every twig, it is only PAINT on a surface standing for some visual experience. Every part of it has to be invented to represnt ie re-present the idea in the mind of the artist,

I want to classify which are purely aesthetic works and which are symbolic.

Click to expand...

I wonder, are you an artist? I ask because a practicing artist would not be able to find a hard line either or...only a continumum an most works would have a mix of both. We only know Brancusi's sculpture is a bird because he calls it that, and when he does we know it's the perfect symbol and expression of birdness.

But the literature I've read on aesthetics (Roger Scruton and others) indicates that among other things, to appreciate something aesthetically it must have the right fit with its environment. If we're talking about wildlife aesthetics then that would mean the wildlife would fit with its habitat, ie it's a real living bird in a real living environment

Click to expand...

This is an idea not clear to me. Is the environment you speak of "out there" or within the art work...and even so Lijefors is noted for his series of the animal and environment, yet the "environment" is simply dashed on color and tone, and not delineated at all, so the "environment" of the wildlife paintings he did, is paint. To me it seems like you are applying an idea to the painting that is arbitrary...there will be only some opinion that says it's one or the other, and not a way to really measure or separate the two elements, both of which exist in any good work. Maybe you mean when it something more about the formal elements of art and less about the subject. Which would still be a continumum.

So, I'm wondering whether you can actually create an artwork that is purely aesthetic. Or by the very nature of it having been created by a human, does the representation take on a symbolic meaning becaues of the context, history, artist, etc?

Click to expand...

The only purely aesthetic work I can imagine is one in my mind....as soon as one stroke hits the surface I've already made a symbol

So IMHO you need to ask a better question that gets to the real point you are trying to understand about the nature of art. But this discussion has certainly been interesting to follow, so I'm glad you asked it.

Thanks![/QUOTE]

Thank you everyone, for those insights and leads. It's been a fascinating morning following those all up!

The reason this question came about is that I'm studying the social values of Australian threatened birds, ie. I'm trying to find out what birds mean to Australian society in order to better conserve them. So I'm approaching this question from a social science perspective and from a values perspective.

To give some brief background...

My research is based on the Yale scholar Stephen Kellert’s work on attitudes to wildlife. I’ve identified 12 different consumptive and non-consumptive values that humans hold for birds: physical aesthetic, cultural/symbolic, spiritual, conservation, ecological, biophysical, humanistic, experiential, mastery, negative, utilitarian, and moral/intrinsic.

Definitions I'm using are:
Aesthetic - primary interest in physical attractiveness / sensuous qualities of birds, their sounds, colours, appearance, textures and smells / symbolic characteristics of birds.

Cultural / symbolic - animals function as expressions of group identity or social experiences and the objects of specialized attachments.

Traditionally in social science, to find out how people value something, you'd ask them directly through a survey, but since I'm trying to capture values for as many of Australia’s 700 odd species as possible, and the general public's knowledge of birds is mostly limited to the more well-known species, I've been going about it a different way. The first stage of my research has therefore involved gathering nationally representative data on representations of different species across society, across all the value categories. The idea is to create a social profile for each species in terms of how it's valued and to see if, in the case of threatened species, this influences society’s interest in their conservation.

So for example for the symbolic category I identified which species are represented on stamps, street signs and place names, defence force mascots, sports team names, coins, council logos, etc. It's fascinating to see just how often birds show up on everyday items.

For physical aesthetic the range of representations appeared much smaller (I was limiting searches to publicly available, nationally representative data). I examined which species are found on artworks held in national galleries and libraries, individual species bird calls and media stories that discuss the physical characteristics of different species.

It seemed to me though that artworks were both potentially aesthetic and symbolic so I began to think I was trying to fit a square peg into a round hole by categorising them all as aesthetic. Hence my original question to this group, which you’ve all so thoughtfully responded to. I think we mostly agree that both aesthetics and symbolism play a part.

However, the literature on wildlife aesthetics that I've read so far (by philosophers and scientists such as Roger Scruton, Holmes Rolston III, David Stokes and Jamie Lorimer) suggests that aesthetics not only include the physical characteristics of an animal, but also the context (including the indexical signs you mention Andrew) and its life-force:

"Aesthetic experience of wildlife is one of spontaneous form in motion" says Holmes Rolston III.

Lorimer says that charisma or physical appeal is most relevant in living animals rather than representations of them because of their impact on our emotions.

This is where I got the idea that to truly judge a bird’s aesthetic appeal you have to be considering the living bird rather than a representation of it. halftwo, you described this beautifully in your post on zen birding.

But this leads on to several more related questions such as:
- do some birds seen in the wild have more aesthetic appeal than others, and why?
- as artists, do you have a preference for representing particular species over others and why?
- do you think this selective process can influence society’s understanding of which species are aesthetically or symbolically important?
- since humans are biologically programmed to be influenced by things like neoteny and anthropomorphism, will we ultimately prioritise which species of birds are conserved because of their looks or human characteristics, or will the other values we hold for them prevail (such as their intrinsic value)?

sorry, that's a lot of heavy questions for a Sunday morning! may have to go and lie down now, or better yet go out and do some birding. While writing this I had to dash outside with the bins as a pair of adult pheasant coucals and their chick were walking up my driveway, which has made my day. Much more exciting than the scores of humble doves also wandering around

As you say - a lot of questions!

But I'll take this one below and give my tuppence-worth.

"Do some birds seen in the wild have more aesthetic appeal than others, and why?"

Yes, is the obvious answer to the first part. Why? Well, that's a complex question. Colours and forms play a big part obviously - boldly patterned, bright or unusual colours often feature in 'favourite' birds amongst birders & non-birders alike.
But then edges become blurred.

If you take a bird of prey, even if not particularly striking to the eye, then the predatory appearance strikes several bells in the human conscious. Not purely aesthetic, but something other: danger, predation, fear, power, speed...etc are recognised and emotions come in to play. (The reaction that many animals, humans included, have to snakes is perhaps even more obvious.)

So raptors feature heavily in symbolic images, as well as amongst 'favourites'.

But if you separate birders from non-birders (and perhaps artists from non-artists?) there are often conscensuses about what a "good" bird is, which might only sometimes be related to intrinsic aesthetic appeal. An example: Wryneck. A subtly-coloured (crytic, even) bird, which nonetheless is high up among birders' favourites. Why? Difficult to say. Something about the subtlety, the muted but beautiful colours; but also the enigma of the bird, its scarcity, its habits, its behaviour - all this quite often lost on non-birders - who merely see an image.

Quite often families of birds are, generally, valued as birds to birders more than others: warblers over sparrows, perhaps, pheasants over grouse, thrushes above gulls, owls over crows...and sometimes birders agree on whole groups as well as individual species as "better" than others - but be hard-pressed to explain their preferences to non-birders.

Sometimes, too, birders will reject the gaudy too-often depicted "beautiful" birds that make up many "tea-towel" type images seen commonly and prefer more subtle individuals.

So the "Why?" would be answered very differently by various people/groups, and your survey could engender as many reasons as people!

There's something there about understanding as well, do you think? When we begin to understand something a little better, gain some knowledge about it, we begin to appreciate its beauty more.

genkigarden said:

There's something there about understanding as well, do you think? When we begin to understand something a little better, gain some knowledge about it, we begin to appreciate its beauty more.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but maybe the converse! As I say, we, as birders, are not necessarily talking about pure aesthetics. For us it's more complex. For non-birders perhaps the aesthetic is all they can appreciate - so that has greater moment to them.
Knowing about things alters perceptions, invariably, and other things come into play...
If you have a look members' avatars on Birdforum - many post images of birds (& quite often parts of birds, or images from life involving a bird or birds) - these give some insight to how we are thinking when we share an image with meaning with others.
As I say, it's complex!