Stephen Pinker and the Decline of Art

In 'The Blank Slate' Stephen Pinker notes a correspondence between a possible decline in what he calls 'elite' art and the non-intuitive nature of this art. He suggests that the reason for this decline (in mass popularity at least) is due to the adopting of a relativistic philosophy in which appreciation of art is something learned, and therefore relative. This 'blank slate' approach to arts appreciation he contrasts with an aesthetic sense which is innately inscribed in human psychology. Poems that rhyme, painting that look like things, and music that follows tradition patterns of rhythm and melody, he claims, have an appeal because they engage with hard-wired structures in the brain. Modern and postmodern artworks make no such appeal and therefore, he seems to suggest, are acts of indulgence and empty intellectualism which, unsurprisingly, strike no chord with a mass audience.

This distinction that he makes between art that taps into intuitive responses and that which does not is markedly different from the equally obvious distinction between science that makes intuitive sense and that which doesn't. Much science, particularly of the twentieth century, requires an enormous suspension of disbelief and an approach which is radically counter-intuitive. Such science is, unsurprisingly, largely off the radar of the mass of the population, for the simple reason that it requires extensive training to begin to understand what it means. Pinker does not read this as a 'decline' of science however.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Stephen
• Pinker
• art
• science
• aesthetics
• evolution
• evolutionary
• psychology
• biology
• music
• poetry
• elite
• blank
• slate

[diesel828]

wrong

[conferencereport]

Would you like to say more?

[DustTown]

good insight. I'm sure you saw Pinker's vid on TED about his book blank slate.

Nevertheless, I agree with Pinker that some literary theories and arts have become so "head-over-the-cloud" that really has dissociated from the mass audience.

[conferencereport]

I suppose the point that interests me is that, when science becomes non-intuitive and divorced from the lived experience of a 'mass public' that is not considered a sign of its decadence, whereas in art a similar dissociation is thought of in this way. I'm not sure about the 'demonstrable applications' argument, since much science doesn't have application, however it does seem to display some kind of coherence or predictability which innovative art may lack. I don't know, I'm struggling here.

[Horus8305]

@conferencereport I am in agreement with you. I often find that this perceived decline in the appreciation of art is more of a failure to perceive how the appreciation of art has changed. I firmly believe that quite the opposite is true and that trying to measure appreciation using out-modded ways of measuring it (for example, museum attendance, donations to "the arts", etc) have lead to, well and under-appreciation of how much art and its appreciation is actually flourishing.

[theseanze]

It's just like religion: the drive for meaning, purpose, context and morals is fundamental to survival, but force anybody to be %100 secular on opinions and its like putting like sides of a magnet together.

To be alive, to be conscious is to have subjectivity by default.  Objective, logical thinking is a tool we develop and can use to steer subjectivity, but never replace it. So art can challenge people, but it can't dismiss them and still be art, in my opinion. Neither can theories.

[theseanze]

But you have to meet your audience at least halfway, which many elite scientific theorists and abstract artists seem to think is too bothersome. Though there are different kinds of progress. Arguably, Dali and Frank Zappa are progressive, yet intuitive as Einstein. They challenged culture and somehow became cultural icons.

But the Pollocks, John Cages and quantum theorists are so caught up in objective thinking that it fails to connect with the collective subjective.

[quitehelpful]

So that if we deem it art's business to elevate us beyond our natural propensities for lust, parochialism, and violence, we will have to find a place for art that challenges rather than acquiesces to human nature. On p. 163 Pinker quotes Hepburn from The African Queen: "Nature...is what we are put in this world to rise above." He thinks moral commitments need not be determined by nature, but if art is to have a moral function then it cannot take nature as its only cue either.

[quitehelpful]

My worry is that Pinker's view of human nature, despite his attempts to alleviate fears about it, includes natural propensities towards lust, parochialism, and to a certain extent violence. An art based on his theory of human nature would perhaps have to appeal to these our baser instincts. Perhaps the art that DOES presently appeal at a mass level, that marked by sexual indulgence and gratuitous violence, is a true exemplification of art conforming to Pinker's view of human nature.

(cont.)

[quitehelpful]

Fred, I don't know if you have a response to any of the following.

Pinker believes art should respect human nature; the failure of 20th century art to do this, e.g. by ignoring traditional standards of representation and beauty, led to its disconnect at a popular level. At the bottom of p. 417 he gives a list of fields which could contribute to a style of art based on human nature. ("Vision research can illuminate painting and sculpture," etc.)

(cont.)

[DustTown]

Therefore, the point is, the transformational role of art--e.g. poems of William Blake, Art of Alex Grey, Music of John Williams--have become de-emphasized in Academic Arts and Literary Theory. Science, in contrast, has demonstratable applications. (cont.)