LONG READ: Spine tingling art and Hume? Yep.
Image: ScreenGeek
For many centuries people have had an appetite for spine-tingling narrative art. Some of which brings about pain and aims to stimulate negatively charged emotions. As such, it becomes perplexing as to why it is acceptable for people to deliberately seek experiences through art which can, among other apparently negative responses, shock, sadden and frighten. Rational thinking dictates that people would steer clear of such experiences in their day to day lives. Yet, they actively seek out said experiences through artworks. Therein holds the paradox of painful art. David Hume’s solution to the paradox of painful art offers that pain is converted into pleasure. This essay disagrees. To defend this, a number of flaws will be exploited and discussed in order to prove that Hume does not resolve the paradox. Ultimately this essay will convey that the problem is multifaceted and complex, and requires far more than his broad explanation to the problem.
In philosophical terms, a paradox in itself is an unacceptable end to an apparently sound proof (Mautner, 2000. p. 408). A simple example of this is; the next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false. Here, it is possible to see that Mautner’s definition works well here. Having said that, Chappell (2014. p. 25) suggests, ‘A paradox is a set of statements where each statement considered in isolation from the others is apparently true, but where the set as a whole appears to imply some philosophically unwelcome consequence…’. There are a number of offers for a solution to the paradox of painful art. Hume attempts to resolve it in his work ‘Of Tragedy’ (Hume, 1777). His solution asserts that, when we observe tragedy through art, two things are occurring. Emotional negativity is roused but at the same time is converted by the skill at which the events are delivered; ‘…the whole impulse of those passions is converted into pleasure, and swells the delight which the eloquence raises in us’ (Hume, 1777). Thus, according to Hume, pain is converted into pleasure, making the experience ‘…altogether delightful’ (Hume, 1777) providing it is carefully combined with skillful, brilliant artistry. In support of this interpretation of Hume’s solution, in thoughts of painful art; one cannot help but be blown away by Shakespeare’s language even when what that language is describing is something which one cannot fail to be horrified by.
With Hume’s solution to the paradox of painful art being a simultaneous conversion from pain to pleasure, one could now begin to see beyond initial rational perplexities to negative art. To further cement his solution, Hume’s essay lends that not only is pleasure an outcome of tragic art; but in fact that pleasure is amplified, and can ‘…please more than the most beautiful objects, that appear calm and indifferent’ (Hume, 1777). He suggests that said amplification is brought about by the tragedy being utterly fictional, and as an ‘…imitation… is always of itself agreeable.’ (Hume, 1777). The very nature of tragic art being unreal affords the viewer, hearer or reader, a deeper emotional pleasure because they are not marred by natural human feelings towards the bad experiences that occur in real life tragedies. Aristotle is closely aligned with the fictional viewpoint above with his definition of tragedy being ‘…the imitation of an action,’ (Cottingham, 2008. p.701). In this sense, he too believes that imitated action is the purpose of tragedy.
In terms of the actual conversion, Hume argues that it is the predominant emotion that takes precedence. When sorrow is interdependent with beauty, he regards the overall pain as redirected and captured by pleasure. Hume is suggesting the stronger emotion is the awe or the pleasure, the delight that we take in Shakespeare’s language. Shakespeare’s work can present an audience with fearful or pitiful experiences, but does so using a force of beauty. Hume argues that simply the act of doing so, at the very least, changes the nature of the experience and that the inferior negativity will fall at the wayside to, or be consumed by, the more predominant pleasure. Having said that, negative emotion from narrative art can sometimes become predominant. This could be due to poor orchestration or depiction, however Hume suggests that this is due to the horror being ‘…too bloody and atrocious.’ (Hume, 1777). This tangent of thought adds strength to Hume’s favoured ‘conversion’ solution as opposed to this less absolute ‘balance’ solution. He urges that there must to be a careful balance between the skillful artistry and passion, and the horror or pity in order to ‘…dismiss the audience with entire satisfaction and contentment…’ (Hume, 1777).
In the Journal of Aesthetic Education, Smuts writes that ‘Hume fails to give a satisfying account of this process of conversion…’ (Smuts, 2007). With that in mind, Smuts goes on to undo his claim by referring to Hume’s explanation to the problem as ‘…not altogether implausible’. Further still, he goes on to elaborate that unifying elements of art experiences become overall pleasurable when they are not real experiences. For these reasons, Hume’s favoured solution stands tall over Smuts’ claim of failure.
There are pointers to other understandings of the paradox of painful art in Hume’s work. It can be noted that, he insists, his example of extreme gore from the ‘Ambitious Stepmother’ tips the balance towards negativity and therefore fails to please overall. If he does in actual fact believe so, this becomes merely a view from an apparently refined taste and does not encompass views from those with a particularly distasteful intellect. One can also question as to whether that particular audience is already accustomed to gore of this nature, and as such a greater impact is necessary in order to facilitate the balance Hume so desires. This in turn leads to question the evolving nature of expectations within narrative art over time. Hume bases his solution on poetic theatre and paintings. However, with said past experiences in mind, it becomes safe to assume that say, eighteenth century audiences had a very different grounding to that of a modern day audience. For these reasons, however adequate, Hume’s solution to the paradox of painful art does not absolutely resolve the issue.
In search for a more enduring solution to the problem, a more apt option would be aesthetic cognitivism. Aesthetic cognitivism gives one the power to obtain further understanding, emotional knowledge, or cognitive gain by means of art. So, people would seek out painful art in order to cognitively gain in some way. Soon after World War One people struggled to articulate the true nature of the occurrences witnessed at the front line (Lees, 2014). Understandably, such things may not be possible to put into words. Yet, wartime paintings that depict these settings help people to honour the dead by remembering, and pass on that knowledge through the generations of tomorrow. In light of an aesthetic cognitivist view it becomes fathomable to seek out this kind of imagery, as seen in Sargent, J. (1919) Gassed, in order to not only help us emotionally gain, but also remember our fallen with greater meaning and understanding. The aesthetic cognitivist could argue that an audience of wartime imagery is using it as a vehicle for education, and not necessarily to gain pleasure. However, revered wartime artwork beholds patriotism, becomes reassuring to its viewers and unifies all. Thus boosting morale and ultimately promoting overall pleasure through the achieved greater understanding.
It is difficult to accept Hume’s solution is erroneous owing to his own carelessness. A more acceptable, and respectful, notion is to consider that the apparent failing is deliberate. What Hume offers is a solid but broad response to a multifaceted and intricate paradox. A broad response that would have been far better suited to pre-eighteenth century art and poetic theatre. His solution could be more appropriately appointed as a guiding explanation, as opposed to an absolute solution to the paradox of painful art. The absence of a defined and explained physical change, when Hume refers to his conversion, forces it to become unacceptable as a solution.
Also, to solely rely on his essential ‘careful balance’ creates uncertainties in itself. It opens up the problem by which people can still be thrilled by perceived gore and violence, no matter how unbalanced the experience may to be overall. An objection to this could be that this is a case of class. Those of a higher deemed class could argue that brutality may very well be befitting for the common appetite, but hardly so for the refined. What is overwhelmingly certain is that social class does not command and control an elitist to feel any different from that of any other, as much as expectations may very well try. To do so would deny human emotions exist in their lives or at the very least demonstrate their unnatural ability to withhold said emotions from the view of others. An apparent denial of emotions leads to another objection to Hume’s solution. Remembering that, according to Hume, the ‘predominant’ emotion will always prevail; feeling mixed emotions of pleasure, pain and even curiosity are not possible with his conversion theory. Yet, some painful art can and does in fact leave audiences with an overall feeling of horror, pain and anguish. This questions whether audiences of Hume’s time dealt with art that was specifically designed to cause emotions such as these. Moreover, it shows that Hume’s solution offers an explanation attributable to the painful art up to and including his own era, one that is nonetheless far from timeless and absolute.
The very nature of a paradox has an unwelcome consequence from a set of sound statements. ‘Of Tragedy’ attempts to give a solution to the paradox of painful art. By inferring that people seek painful art for overall pleasure is its own undoing. This is further cemented by the fact that Hume offers no descriptive explanation for the actual conversion which, he asserts, takes place between pain and pleasure. His solution falls through and as such it continues to face unwelcome outcomes. Consequently the paradox remains exactly that. As an important and authoritative figure in Western philosophy (Kors, 2005), it is reasonable to accept that Hume deliberately offers a broad explanation for why people seek painful art, as opposed to solving it entirely. The problem is much too multifaceted and complex to bind into one solution. Furthermore, even if that were possible for the art and poetic theatre of the past; it has now evolved and will undoubtedly continue to do so. Thus, not only did Hume’s solution to the problem not solve it for art works of his time, it is neither a timeless or all-encompassing solution towards the painful art of today.
