Discussion of Art in an Advanced Society

Suzanne Langer, according to Terry Barrett in Why is that Art? states that:

“The visual artist uses elements other than words that are less specific and freer than words constrained by definitions, and we see the artist’s use of the elements—sounds, marks, gestures—and understand them directly and immediately. The artist, by the use of symbolism, has the capacity to think about things without implying the existence of those objects. Whereas philosophy and science use discursive language (proceeding to a conclusion with reason rather than intuition) and propositional language (logically expressed statements), art uses nondiscursive language, that is, symbolism that cannot be directly or easily translated into literal, logical statements.”

Let me first say that I agree with this classification, and that science, philosophy, and other forms of reason and evidence based logic are inherently more articulate than any understanding of art we have so far.

Now, let’s assume that we, as a society, will have a much greater and inclusive understanding of art in the future, whether it is fifty years from now or five hundred and fifty. I don’t think many would dispute this postulation.

Okay. Now, let us imagine that as a society (in the future) we can reach such a level of understanding, a catalogue for reasoning, that we assume a mode of articulation of art that compares with the level of articulation that we have for our understanding of scientific and philosophical concepts. Basically, we will be able to describe art and interpretation of art as clearly as we can discuss the principle of gravity. In stating this possibility, someone told me that it would cease to become art. The intuitive and emotional side of art would be undermined by such understanding and articulation, and it would not be possible to be as expressive and traditionally artistic. At least, that is how I interpreted this statement.

I contest this assertion with a simple analogy. In psychology, there are certain theories regarding emotion and cognition, much of which attempts to be affirmed with empirical data (for instance, brainscan imaging). The study of emotion, and agreed upon vocabulary, allow us to discuss and understand emotion in ways that we were previously unable to do. Does this discussion, this deconstruction of emotion in any way negate emotion? Does simply having the means to discuss it somehow undermine its existence, or the physiological ways in which our bodies respond to it? Does the ability to discuss and understand art, to deconstruct it and study the ways our minds respond to it somehow mean that it doesn’t exist?