The relationship between art and morality plays a secondary role in the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). In this area, Schopenhauer failed to establish consistent principles and incurred contradictions. Nevertheless, it teaches us lessons that are worth examining.
For Schopenhauer, artistic experiences (he was in particular referring to playing music and listening to music) help people escape their pressing problems. When enjoying music, theatre, literature or painting, individuals stop perceiving the world and focus their minds on something else.
Although Schopenhauer didn’t employ the term “escapism,” his definition of art falls close to this psychological term. One shouldn’t forget that psychologists coined the term “escapism” in the mid-twentieth century, that is, about two hundred years after Schopenhauer’s death.
Art and morality in Schopenhauer’s work
In his book “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer theorized that artworks draw viewers into a state of abstraction, meditation or contemplation. Artistic experience can lead viewers to blur the borderline between themselves and an invented world.
However, Schopenhauer overlooked several crucial points. I am afraid that he never figured out why some artworks convey a philosophical message and others not. He also failed to grasp the connection between artworks and the artist’s point of view, especially in the area of ethics.
In his essay collection “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), Schopenhauer mentions numerous artworks but examines them only from the escapist perspective.
His analysis never answers the crucial question: What is the meaning of art? Schopenhauer fails to identify the difference between high- and low-quality art, and shows little concern for what is the artist trying to say.
Schopenhauer and the underlying truths in art
Instead of addressing major questions, Schopenhauer comes up with an abstruse theory. He argues that artworks enable the viewers to connect with underlying truths, that is, with the will (“life force”), which he viewed as the force driving the world.
Schopenhauer’s explanations are clearly contradictory. He is saying, on the one hand, that artworks help viewers disconnect from reality. On the other hand, he is also saying that artworks enable viewers to connect with an underlying reality.
No wonder that philosophers find Schopenhauer’s theory of art hard to fathom. If he regards artworks as expressions of the will, does it not mean that they all convey similar messages? If artworks represent the will from the artist’s point of view, does it no mean that artists can misrepresent the will’s message?
Although Schopenhauer’s books span a three-decade period, they never solve the contradiction outlined above. In fact, later Schopenhauer’s works only deepen the contradiction by adding spurious explanations.
Schopenhauer and artistic genius
Schopenhauer sustains that artistic geniuses possess innate abilities enabling them to grasp underlying truths, that is, grasp the influence of the will on humans, society and history. I point to Schopenhauer’s choice of words. The term “innate abilities” has the same supernatural connotation as “underlying truths.”
Contradictions are as short-lived in philosophy as in every other area of human activity. It’s obvious that the perception of “underlying truths” is incompatible with escapism. Either art is bringing you deeper into reality, or is bringing it away from it.
Schopenhauer must have been aware of the deficiencies in his art theory. It makes a world of difference whether artworks are teaching you deep moral truths, or whether they are taking you away from ethics. Either they are teaching you the path, or they are obscuring the path.
Did Schopenhauer try to solve this contradiction? Not at all, unfortunately. Since he could not figure out the answer, he just changed the subject. “Parerga and Paralipomena” describes the artworks style, harmony in particular, but says preciously little about their philosophical meaning.
Schopenhauer’s art categories
Instead of doing serious philosophical work, Schopenhauer invented art categories (“sublime” versus “beautiful”) that only magnify the contradiction. He theorized that sublime artworks evoke in viewers the immense force of the will, while beautiful artworks evoke the harmony of the will.
It doesn’t take long for readers to realize that Schopenhauer is negating his own definition of the will as wild and irrational. The word “harmony” is anathema to Schopenhauer’s definition of the will. No wild, irrational force can bring about harmony.
An easy refutation of Schopenhauer’s art theory comes from its claim of aesthetic universality. By connecting art experience to the will, Schopenhauer is arguing for a universal language in art, but such a claim is manifestly false.
Schopenhauer and artistic universality
It is pointless to seek a common artistic language in Mozart, ancient Indian music and Michelangelo. The lack of a common language is patent. There is no conveyance of underlying truths common to all artists, precisely because each artist possesses a separate mind.
Schopenhauer got lost in the contradictions that he himself had created. That’s why his explanations about art and morality fail to stick. He ended up being unable to judge artworks at all, giving the same weight to portrayals of suffering and virtue.
Even when referring to artworks that portray virtue, he was unable to explain his preference for promoting compassion and empathy. Schopenhauer failed to reconcile the wild, merciless, irrational will with human emotions.
I can only lament that, instead of solving his contradictions, Schopenhauer ended up praising artistic ambiguity. Instead of establishing criteria for artistic judgement, he declared himself open to artworks embodying a wide range of ethical values.
Schopenhauer should have recognized that artworks are not manifestations or objectifications of the will. Few artworks can fall under his narrow definition. Most of them not. Good music has positive effects but does not reveal hidden mysteries. It is a a pity that Schopenhauer failed to amend his error in this field.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas to problems here and now, I recommend you my book “The philosophy of builders.”
Related articles
Schopenhauer’s views on intellectual pursuits
Analysis of Schopenhauer’s views on intellectual pursuits
Origin of Schopenhauer’s views on intellectual pursuits
Schopenhauer’s views on wisdom