دو روایت از تکوین مفهوم هنرهای زیبا: ارزیابی مجدد کریستلر

1- Introduction

The title of my Ph.D. thesis was “The problem of basis in theoretical Iranian art studies”. As soon as I started to write, there was a problem that I couldn’t solve it easily and it seemed to me that this problem has been largely ignored. We know that the Persian word for “Fine Arts” is “Honar”, but this word (as it is used today) is a “new” word. The history of this new Persian word has not written until today. So, the question is clear: How can we write and think about the Iranian-Islamic philosophy of arts? It cannot be explained here that how I solved this problem, but in searching the solution I realized that I must first clear this problem (and its solutions) in West (the origin of this concept). Kristeller’s “The modern system of the arts” was a good starting point, but not without a “reassessment”. This article is derived from the first chapter of the aforementioned thesis and discusses the subject of “Genesis of Fine Arts” from the perspective of “our problem”.

2- Kristeller’s “Modern system of Arts”

In the first part of this article, I will explain Kristeller’s “Modern system of Arts”. He believed that what we know as “fine Arts” has originated in the 18th century. He detailed that this concept did not exist in ancient Greece, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance. In this section, I will also use Larry Shiner’s The Invention of Art: A cultural history and Tatarkiewicz’s A history of six ideas. I call these views the “first narrative”.

3- The opposite narrative

The second (or the opposite) narrative believes that although “Fine Arts” is a modern concept, it has its equivalents in pre-modern history. For example, James O. Young (Who has translated Charles Batteux’s The Fine Arts Reducing to a Single Principle) argues that “imitative arts” in ancient Greek philosophy is almost equal to modern “Fine Arts”. He also discusses the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. He, finally, contrary to Kristeller’s view on Charles Batteux (who generally is accepted that coined the term “Beaux-arts”), claims that Batteux’s influential ideas were not completely original and his completely original ideas were not influential.

4- A third narrative?

In the next section of this article, I will briefly examine this issue in relation to ancient Greece, the Middle Ages and Renaissance. I will also make some remarks and considerations on the previous narratives. Finally, I conclude that what is important is the nature of “arts” in the modern era. I argue that the fathers of the modern age (Descartes and Bacon) paved the way to the “modern system of arts”. In other words, “Genesis of fine arts” and “formation of aesthetics” are two sides of the same coin. I defend Kristeller’s narrative, but this defends adds a philosophical aspect to it.

5- The relation between us and west

There is also another way to defend the third narrative. The new concept of “honar” (the Persian word for “art”) has two sides: A Persian and a western side. The relation between these two sides is complex and problematic. In the last section of this article, I suggest that by explaining this “relation”, we can raise “our problem” in a meaningful way and, understand the west from our point of view. 

References

-      Batteux, Charles (2015) The Fine Arts Reduced to a Single Principle, translated with an introduction and notes by: James O. Young, Oxford University Press.

-      Kristeller, Paul Oskar (1951) “The Modern System of the Arts: A Study in the History of Aesthetics Part I”, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 496-527.

-      Kristeller, Paul Oskar (1952) “The Modern System of the Arts: A Study in the History of Aesthetics (II)”, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 17-46.

-      Perseus Digital Library

-      Shiner, Larry (2001) The invention of Art: A cultural history, University of Chicago press.

-      Tatarkiewicz, Wladyslaw (1980) A history of six ideas (An essay in aesthetics), Melbourne