Eruption Of The Volcano Vesuvius

With regard to contemporary art, it is hard to determine what is pleasing and what will be remembered due to the sheer volume of opinions. Therefore, we must go back to an earlier age to identify what makes an artwork last. From the cross-cultural comparison of the art pieces, The Great Wave off Kanagawa, and Eruption of the Volcano Vesuvius, I synthesized the theory that art, that of which is considered truly pleasing, can stand the test of time regardless of its origin.
Both of these art pieces are from different cultures but are from the same time period, so the question that arises is how did these two pieces manage to stay pleasing?
The first question that must be answered is, what is pleasing? Similar to Hume’s Standard of Taste, we
can observe that a standard that defines something as pleasing exists. To define this standard we must acknowledge that there are rules, and that these rules are empirical (based off experience, not logic), they are general (consisting of all cultures and ages), but they are based on the viewers sentiments (that of which pleases overall). Because these rules are general, the concept of what is pleasing cannot be limited to a certain time period since that would suggest that there is not a permanent standard. After determining that there is a standard, we can conclude that anything that is to be considered pleasant must be able to pass this standard.
Returning to the original question, we can now analyze how these two pieces both pass the standard.
Eruption of the Volcano Vesuvius was painted during the romanticism era of art and has been depicted as a piece that shows both the interesting, horrific, and majestic side of a volcano eruption. The painting is meant to inflict emotions of awe and dread to its viewers, and it certainly does so from the destructive nature of a volcano, yet the power of a natural disaster is always something that can cause astonishment. Its effectiveness of relating to so many viewers through the emotions of awe and dread, as well viewers from different locations or time periods since natural disasters are global and perennial, shows that it passes the empirical and general rules of the
standard.
The Great Wave off Kanagawa also passes the standard but in a slightly different manner.
In the context of its time, this painting was created during a time of new isolationism in Japan which is shown in the painting through the solitude of Mount Fuji among the huge rogue waves. Even though Mount Fuji is the center of this piece, the overwhelming size of the waves is meant to capture the qualities of yin and yang that identifies with spiritual beliefs and experiences of the Japanese. Through its ability to connect with the Japanese culture, this piece satisfies the rule of being empirical based off the experience it relates to the viewers. Its method of satisfying the general is slightly different from Eruption of the Volcano Vesuvius because it is not able to relate to all people in a cultural fashion. Similar to the Eruption of the Volcano Vesuvius, the size of the waves reminds us of the destructive and awesome power of nature. However, with the Great Wave off Kanagawa its general satisfaction comes from it actual appeal. The massive rogue waves in this piece are perfectly portioned to be Fibonacci numbers which has been called “the golden ratio” because of how visually pleasing it is. In a sense, this piece of art satisfies the rule of being general by actually being perfect
numerically.
We have seen how both of these pieces satisfy the general and empirical rules, however, the next step is to determine what is pleasing overall. An opposing viewpoint may declare that have questions that include: Wouldn’t something I consider ugly, revoke that arts ability to be called beautiful? Each person is different anatomically so how can we be sure that everyone is perceiving things in the same fashion? Lastly, if there is something as pleasing, there must also be the concept of displeasing, so how can we distinguish between either?
To counter the opposing viewpoints first question, we must first have the understanding that something beautiful is not exactly the same as something pleasing. The two words may be synonyms in some cases, but because there are just that, they do not mean the exact same thing. Beauty is not an objective quality. It exists only in the mind as the feeling of approval exist in our heart so there is no such thing as “real beauty”. Some people will regard an object as beautiful that others perceive as ugly. Therefore, it is fruitless to seek the real beauty as is fruitless to seek the real sweet or real sour since there are so many estimations and this ties into the second question.
Since each person is different due to genetic variation, it is plausible that their perception of objects may be different. That being said, there must also be internal and external influences as well when determining if something is pleasing. The internal (emotions, stability, and attentiveness) and external (environment) influences can drastically change a viewer’s perception of an artwork. However, similar to Kant, in order to truly judge a piece of art, the viewer must be disinterested, meaning that there can be no bias or preference beforehand. Also, similar to Hume, when judging whether something is pleasing, equality must be present. Equality means that we must disregard our physical differences and internal and external influences in order to view the art in detail and, therefore, the most valid way to judge.
To answer the last question, the idea of deformities comes into play. Deformities are essentially personal repugnancies. If we were to even consider deformities, which we should not since they are biased, if something were to be considered pleasing, the pleasure arising from its qualities must overpower the displeasure stemming from deformities. That is to say, the negative impact of transgressions must not surpass the total tally of positive qualities in order for it to be pleasing. However, deformities do not please. Nobody can enjoy them. If the rules of composition are resulting from what generally pleases, then we cannot say that deformities are being appreciated because that would contradict the very nature of the rules created from enjoyable emotions (approval of object).
Since the two pieces of art have passed the general and empirical rules, we can now determine why they are pleasing overall. If we were to view these two pieces under equal conditions along with disinterest, we would notice that there is pleasing balance of colors in both pieces, with the balance between light and dark in the Eruption of the Volcano Vesuvius and the blue monochromatic theme in The Great Wave off Kanagawa. Both pieces inflict a sense of awe due to how large each setting is with the comparison of the humans to the volcano and the small size of Mount Fuji as well as the boats full of men. Because it is possible to appreciate these two pieces of art that can connect with so many people of a different time and places, I believe that they have been accepted as pleasing. And because they are, even with the different preferences of beauty or ugly in humans, it is to my understanding that if an art piece surpasses the requirement of what is considered pleasing, it can stand the tests of time.