aristotle and katharsis

So far we have seen that the everyday version of expressivism is too simplistic as a description of the relation between art and emotion. It is also inadequate as an explanation of the value of art. Even if art making was an outpouring of emotion and art appreciation a reciprocal experience of the emotion outpoured, there is this further question. What is so good about the outpouring of emotion?

One suggestion appeals to the idea of 'katharsis' or purging. This is the theory that by arousing emotions in us and giving us objects upon which to vent them, the artist purges us of emotional disturbances that might other- wise erupt inconveniently in ordinary life. The concept of katharsis can be found in both Plato and Aristotle, but it is with Aristotle that it is especially associated. In the Poetics, an imperfect text of some lectures on tragedy and epic poetry, Aristotle advances the view that their value derives at least in part from their ability to focus the audience's feeling of fear and pity in a way that relieves them of these feelings. Furthermore, it does so harmlessly, in the sense that the feelings are purged without the necessity of the negative actions that normally accompany them.

It should be observed straight away that Aristotle cannot be said to have a general theory along these lines. First, thePoetics is not a work about art, but only two forms of it - tragedy and epic poetry, although Greek tragedy included music. Second, it is incomplete. We know about, but do not possess, a second volume on comedy, and perhaps Aristotle had something quite different to say about it. Third, the word 'katharsis' only appears twice. Of course, there is nothing to stop us generalizing where Aristotle did not, and expanding upon his suggestive remarks. The key element to generalize is the idea that the value of art lies in the contribution it makes to our mental or psychological well-being. Art enables us to rid ourselves of emotions that would otherwise be disruptive or destructive by providing us with imaginary rather than real objects to vent those emotions on.

The considerable appeal of this idea, especially in the twentieth century, has relied heavily on what is in fact a very questionable conception of the emotional life of human beings. This is sometimes called (dismissively) the 'pressure cooker theory' of emotions, and its critics point out that emotions are not a set of forces confined within the human heart. Such an idea pre-dates modern psychology and continues to trade on the ancient doc- trine of 'humours'. According to this doctrine, love is to be found in the heart, anger is the blood boiling, literally, and hatred is produced by bile in the spleen. We continue to use these metaphors, but have long ago abandoned the theory that underlies them. Why then would we try to continue with Aristotle's conception of katharsis, which was framed in a world where something like the doctrine of 'humours' was thought to be true?

But let us ignore these important reservations, and suppose that there is some more sophisticated version of the idea that art can relieve us of emotions that would otherwise spill over into ordinary life. Even if there is some truth in this, it cannot unequivocally explain the value of art, since it works two ways. If art can purge us of harmful emotions, it can purge us of beneficial ones as well. Thanks to art we don't hate or hurt as many people as we might, but we don't help as many either. Once relieved of my pity by actors in the theatre, I am less likely to pity the people in the Oxfam posters I pass on my way home. The net effect of katharsis, in short, is neutral as far as the purging of emotion goes.

An alternative to katharsis is arousal, though the two are often combined (and even confused). On this view, art is to be valued not (or not only) for relieving us of emotion, but for stimulating emotional experiences within us. In the previous section, of course, we encountered some serious objections to making emotional response on the part of an audience a key feature of art. Even if such objections could be overcome there is reason to wonder why, taken in isolation, there is something to be valued in the arousal of emotion. If by the skilful use of language someone proves highly effective in arousing race hatred in her audience, this does not seem to warrant admiration of her performance or emulation of her style.

Amongst the most successful uses of pictures, actions and words for the arousal of emotion is pornography. It is plainly the purpose of pornography to arouse a specific emotion - lust - in its audience. The fact that it does so, however, does not either make it art or give us reason to value it. This is partly for the same reason as the racism example; arousing lust in people can have negative consequences. But more important for present purposes is the fact that lust can be powerfully aroused by the crudest of methods. When Penguin published D. H. Lawrence's novel Lady Chatterly's Lover, a court case ensued because, the prosecution alleged, the novel was pornographic. The defence called witnesses to testify to its being art. What was at issue, however, was not whether the novel contained scenes likely to stimulate lustful thoughts and feelings, but whether it did so in a seriously artistic way. The crucial question about artworks is not whether they arouse emotion, but how they do this, if they do. Their value lies in the waythis is done, not in the mere fact of its being done.