I mentioned that I wanted to write more in depth about Aristotle’s Causality and my own interpretations and theories which have sprung from it. When learning about causality, I discovered a definition along the lines of “the causes of natural phenomena, an inquiry into the nature of things.” This, of course, made me think immediately of the theme of Nature this semester in the Master’s Program “Art and Visual Culture,” so hopefully I can develop some of this even more, but here is what I have so far:
In Aristotle’s Metaphysics, he wrote that many of his predecessors were familiar with at least one of the causes in his system of causality, but they did not know all of them and did not understand the relationship between them. Aristotle claimed that there were 4 causes for the existence or nature of things. They are:
- The material cause (the substance)
- The formal cause (the style)
- The efficient cause (the art)
- The final cause (the sake)
These explain not only the nature of “things,” but also the nature or production of art.
Now, of course, these few words are not sufficient to describe all four of the causes, as single words are not usually sufficient to describe entire ideas.
The material cause is quite simple, it is the physical composition, or I call it substance, of a work of art.
The formal cause I have called the style, but many have also called the shape. I chose “style” because it allows my ideas to be more interdisciplinary, relating to visual arts as well as written works. It is also a term I used in my Bachelor’s thesis, and I will explain shortly how much of my new theory derives from what I learned while writing that.
The efficient cause is the art, but more generally the knowledge from the artist. “the art” is not meant to mean the work of art here, but rather “the art” of doing something…like in the title Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Art in this context is meant to be more of a skill, but in an artistic sense, and usually not an aquired skill, but more of a talent.
And finally, the final cause is the end product of art, and this can be confusing as well. The final cause it not the finished physical art piece, but the purpose of the work of art. Art is not the final product of the artist, but the wordless communication from the work of art to the viewer (or in literature reader), and this the sake or purpose for which the work of art was made.
I hope I’m not loosing you here! 😉
Now, to show you how my brain works, I want to show you Aristotle’s 4 causes in German. (Like I said, they’re difficult to understand in single words, so multiple languages are advantagous! If you don’t know German…read anyway) They are:
- Stoff (stuff, material)
- Form (shape, style)
- Wirkung (reception)
- Zweck (purpose)
Those of you who may know a bit about my thesis will recognize Stoff and Form, and possibily even Wirkung. While studying Nietzsche and his work Also Sprach Zarathustra, I examined the material and the style of the work to determine how is was effective (like the efficient cause) on it’s readers. I looked at criticism and praise of the work, but also at works of art that related or alluded to Nietzsche’s work, and came to the conclusion that Nietzsche intent, or his purpose for the book, the sake for which is was written, was for the reception!
At the time I did not know Aristotle’s Causality, but now that I do, I realize that what I was trying to prove was that the efficient cause and the final cause, the Wirkung and the Zweck, of his work were the same thing! The communicative art was made for the sake of the knowledge of art… “l’art pour l’art!”
“Art for Art’s sake” was a slogan for the art movement of Decadence. I even wrote about it in my thesis, but did not realized that Nietzsche himself was supporting a decadent idea. My misconception had been that Nietzsche’s work was “preaching” certain doctorines with a didactic purpose. In truth, he was attempting that his art (the book) be for the sake of art (the artistic reception of his work).
I know that this is hard to grasp unless you’ve read my thesis…so I’ll try to get away from that subject. However, I think the new theory I’ve developed is interesting…
Artist of the Decadence (or Aesthetic) art movement believed in l’art pour l’art (art for art’s sake), which meant that, when using the method of Aristotle’s Causality, the final cause was the same as the efficient cause. In other words, the sake or purpose of decadent art is create more knowledge of art and therefore more art itself.
I have a few loose ends…I few questions I need to have answer, by myself or anyone who would like to comment…
- Can art for art’s sake retain integrity if icons are used? Icons allude to outside knowledge, so does the painting then also have a purpose to tell something other than art?
- Can art from the Decadence movement be narrative? If it is telling a story, how can it’s sake remain for the sake of art? (I’ll have to try to find a decadent but narrative work of art!)
- How does all of this work for literature? I still need to try to wrap my head around that…
Of course, I appreciate your comment and thank you for reading!
I am so glad I stumbled upon your blog! These are the topics I studied in undergrad and that are a passion of mine as well. Now I have someone else’s brain and ideas’ to get my own oiled up and running again. Keep posting!