The Terme Boxer or Boxer At Rest, is 'aesthetically wonderful'
Unknown artist, Boxer At Rest, 100BC. National Museum Of Rome
The Boxer at rest is aesthetically wonderful, it is a Greek bronze and copper sculpture that dates from around 100BC. The subject is seated, looking upwards to its right, in a relaxed and restful pose.
I haven't been in the presents of this sculpture, so realistically my aesthetical pleasure was not from the sculpture itself, but the actual aesthetical experience was from hearing and seeing a descriptive commentary accompanied by a brief film and hauntingly atmospheric music in a piece by historian Mary Beard on BBC's Civilisations program. The opening frame is of the sculpture in a two thirds composition, off to the left, dramatically lit with subtle lighting trailing of into the background giving a sense of theatrical drama, switching dramatically to a close up of the head to the right side of the frame, directly lit to add depth to the dark orbits of the eyes and mouth, in the backdrop a ghostly figure moves, close ups of the sculptures follow revealing the detail of the subject, his bruised cracked lips, his battle scared hands, still bearing the interpretation in bronze of the boxer's leather knuckle straps, a broken nose, cauliflower ears, bleeding wounds, highlighted by the use of different colour bronze and the use of copper, the film captures a human touch with a brief shot of the historian making physical contact hand to hand with the piece, the music fades out as the historian describes the piece, putting the sculpture into context within Greek history and evaluating its signifiers, pointing to the artist intention "to launch a devastating attack on the body culture that obsessed the ancient Greeks" (Beard, Mary. Min 38).
Why do I find this film and commentary of the sculpture aesthetically wonderful ? Several aspects really that make the whole come together. The music, I like its haunting sound, it has a reflective tone too, a sense of looking back at what has gone before, it could be described spiritual in a pagan sense, it sets a mood of contemplation, rising and falling in tone. I like the commentary, its precise and informative adding drama, interest and enthusiasm, but what really works aesthetically for me is the revealing camera work and lighting, it brings you into the same room as the sculpture as if you were there walking around the piece itself, the light and dark that work to reveal the shape of the boxer's battered body, the lighting reveals the depth of the subjects wounds, it enhances the posture and the form of the piece, it enables an empathetic sympathy for one at rest, for the male form, its strengths and weaknesses. "The term 'aesthetics' derives from the Greek word for sensation or perception, aesthesis" (Freeland, p8), sensation is what I felt when I first saw the images of this sculpture, it was an aesthetic experience, but is it one born out of personal taste, born for the preference for the male form, as Kant's theory suggests from beauty "purely subjective (expressions of personal taste)" (Graham p12) , or a taste born from learning, what I know about photographing subjects, to bring out the best in a subject. The philosopher David Hume defined the ability to have an aesthetic taste as "a refined ability to perceive quality in artwork" (Freeland, p9), is that objective? Hume seems to suggest that in this other sentence "The agreeable quality is thought to lie in the object, not in the sentiment" (Graham, p156), this suggests the subjective view is not of value when viewing the aesthetic. I disagree, I believe the moment of aesthetic appreciation is a balanced equation of both learned objectivism and learned subjectivism, a combination of a learned understanding and taste fed by a innate sense of beauty, an innate sense of what is good and bad.
First of all, If I look at the film of the sculpture from an objective point of view, it is what it is, what I see is an object made from two forms of metal, bronze and copper, fashioned into a form to resemble the naked male form. The form is in a sitting position, within a large cavernous room, the object is lit to create highlights and lowlights, shadows are cast. The music is sound, sounds put in order to create a tune, the commentary are words, words put in order to create communication, the photography captures different single frames of composition, it also sweeps around the object, objectivity is what is there, what is real, that’s all it is, Roger Scruton would agree, film is a form of photography after all, he said "photographs are incapable of displaying things which are unreal" (Scruton, p62) Scruton has a view that photography is not art, I understand this to mean it is just an "external reality" (Graham, p156), objectivity is what is real but its also what we have learnt to be real, when we are born we don't know what metal is, we learn what bronze and copper are, we learn that it can be fashioned into shapes, when we are born we don't know that music is music, we learned about it, as Aristotle wrote in Emotions and Music "for intellectual enjoyment, for relaxation and for recreation" (Feagin, p299), we learn what music is, we learn to put musical notes in order to create music. When we are born we don't know how to read, we learn, we learn to put words in order to make sentences, to communicate, to learn about history, when we are born we don’t know what a camera is, how to light a subject, we learn. To understand how aesthetics emotions reveal themselves to us, could it be that the answer is a mathematical one, objectivity being the first part of the equation ? Subjectivity being the second part, then depending on the value we have in each, will equate to our aesthetic emotion. So using that mathematical theory to explain my aesthetic appreciation of 'The Boxer At Rest' objectively I know that Bronze can be shaped into figurative forms, the skill of the process, I have knowledge of the History, I have the skill and the knowledge to understand how photographic lighting works, I appreciate the musical order of notes, I can appreciate the knowledge and expertise of the historians commentary, but having just this knowledge doesn't equate to an aesthetic emotion, it could equate to a passing appreciation of the object, but not to an aesthetic one, to experience that I need to add onto or look at the piece from a subjective point of view
Subjectivity is what one feels, how does this film clip make me feel, when I first saw the sculpture I really did have an aesthetically emotional contact with what I was seeing, the black void of the eyes gave me a feeling of lifelessness, of loss, this loss removes any recognition that this figure is real "Individuality is removed in favour of a concentrated generic expression" (Smith p56) but to the contrary the way the lighting enhanced the contours of the Boxer's face I felt that the lifelessness in and the individual returned to a feeling of restfulness. As the camera moved around the piece revealing battle scars and injury the feelings change again to one of sorrow, the kind of sorrow you feel when you see a great matriarchal leader of the herd retreat for the young upstart, your time is over, time to rest, again my feeling changed to one of restful achievement. These feelings are enhanced by the commentary and by the dramatic tone of the music, how I interpret the music and commentary is all down to how I felt at the time, open to the drama, a feeling of reverence for our classical historic past, the exciting significance to our western culture, a feeling of this is where we are from, a feeling of reverence, our world evolved from the world this classic masterpiece represents. A piece that tells the story of change within Greek culture which ultimately is a change in western culture, this could be relativist rather than objective or subjective. However I think most of all the feelings I have for the sculpture are feelings for the male form, are these feelings an innate sexual attraction to the naked male form, or could they be innate feelings for the long lost influence or longing for a father figure, I certainly felt that as the camera panned back, these feelings are all relevant to me, perhaps innate to me.
What has enabled me to get the aesthetic enjoyment from this sculpture? is it what I have learned ? If so what? From the instant I saw this piece I was pretty sure it was a classical piece, that it was Greek, that it was bronze, that it was a male figure, that it was athletic, that it was seated. I could appreciate the composition of the camera work, the lighting of the piece, I could place the date of the piece, I could see it was placed in a museum, the facts Mary Beard re-laid was of interest to me because I have an understanding and interest in history, these are all learned aspects, they are the objectivity part of the equation, if an individual didn't have the knowledge or interest I have, would they just walk right on by, be in the museum at all, or in this case switch on or change channel ? I think not, so having an education, having knowledge, having an interest is an essential part of the equation that seeks the answer to what is art?
Is the appreciation of art natural, do humans have a seventh sense, a sense that says hang on a minute, what I am looking at here, is it art, an innate feeling inborn, a feeling inherent a feeling that’s instinctive and intuitive, a feeling that can't be learned, its just there, innate. My feelings of connections to the past, a sense of belonging, feelings of a lost father figure, sexual desires towards the male figure, these are feelings that are subjective, that draw me to get aesthetic wonderment from this sculpture, some feelings that are innate, within me, but are some feelings learnt because of circumstance. Some would argue that my sexual attraction to the male form is nurtured and not natural, if it is nurtured then my attraction to the sculpture is learned, if its natural then the attraction is innate, I think its innate
In conclusion I think its important to recognise the subject of the short film is a masterpiece of Greek art, the main aesthetic wonderment is the sculpture, the music, commentary and photography enhanced my aesthetic experience because of what I know and how life has made me feel but I think this particular quote by Hume sums up human nature, its acceptance and acknowledgement of what art is and its philosophy and its aesthetic " If we can depend upon any principle which we learn from philosophy, this, I think, may be considered as certain and undoubted, that there is nothing, in itself, valuable or despicable, desirable or hateful, beautiful or deformed, but that these attributes arise from the particular constitution and fabric of human sentiment and affection." (Graham, p156). I feel that this quote accepts that to recognise art and its aesthetic is to recognise, what we as an individual know and learn and feel.
Bibliography
Books
Feagin, Susan & Maynard, Patrick (1997), Aesthetics, Oxford Paperbacks, Oxford University Press
Freeland, Cynthia (2001), But Is It Art, Oxford University Press.
Graham, Gordon (2000), Philosophy Of The Arts, 2nd Edition, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group
Smith, R.R.R (1991), Hellenistic Sculpture, World Of Art, Thames And Hudson Ltd London
Documentaries
Beard, Mary, (2018) Civilisations, eps 2, How Do I Look? 36 to 39 minute, Directed by Matthew Hill. BBC
No comments:
Post a Comment