General semantics in teaching an introductory course in aesthetics.

AT MILLS COLLEGE for the past two years we have been offering a survey of contemporary fine arts for freshman students. This course is an experiment in staff teaching with a co-ordinator carrying the large part of the teaching load. Faculty members from the various departments in the School of Fine Arts contribute one or more lectures on their subjects of specialization. The purpose of the course is to consider the various manifestations of the contemporary arts, their materials and media, similarities and differences, verbal and non-verbal character, etc. The methods employed include lectures, discussion, student reports, notebooks, and field trips, utilizing the facilities of San Francisco to augment the course-content with concerts, plays, art exhibits, etc.

The sequence of the survey proceeds from non-verbal to verbal communication. Following an introductory section, the dance is studied in relation to its characteristics arising out of movement as a means of communication of the experiences of one individual to other individuals. Then, in succession, periods are devoted to a similar consideration of music, graphic and plastic arts, crafts, drama, and literature.

In such a kaleidoscopic and brief survey of so many fields of human expression presented from the differing points of view held by specialists variously trained, the problem of helping the freshman student orient herself, and develop increasingly adaptable points of view is no small one.

So much intensional literature is published about 'art' in language so 'high-flown' and unintelligible that the freshman student is hopelessly confused if she endeavors to do any reading on the subject. There is much loose talk about 'beauty,' 'pure art,' 'emotion,' and 'intellect,' 'form,' 'content,' etc. Take the case of a youngster who arrives at the college from Klamath Falls, where patchwork quilts, The Lone Wolf, piano lessons, and a town music series consisting of one recital by Richard Crooks and a concert by the glee club from the state teachers college, together make up the 'art experience' of the community. She is likely to be considerably confused by passages such as this in her textbooks: "It is intensified expression in the subjective sense and in truth to medium, and it borders on abstraction ..." (1)

Since, with very few exceptions, readings in aesthetics abound in intensional language and since every artist and every teacher presents a different viewpoint and uses the same terms with obviously different extensional content, I have concluded that the only way to avoid semantic chaos is to incorporate an introduction to general semantics in the introduction to this course. (2)

We begin with a brief study of the human nervous system as the basis for experience and communication, thalamic and cortical areas, short and long nervous circuits, organism-as-a-whole reactions, delayed reactions, cortical differentiations, levels of abstraction, etc. A large portion of this section of the course is concerned with helping to establish an understanding of the multiordinality of the terms abstraction and symbolization. We are anxious that the student become conscious of abstracting as an essential characteristic of all experience, so that, later in the course when more than one lecturer will use the terms abstract art or symbolic art, representation, etc., students will be able to evaluate properly the instructor's use of the word through a recognition of the specialized context in which it is used. In connection with study of these terms, we use Kretchmer's Medical Psychology on sphaira, stylization, etc.

'Emotional art' and 'intellectual art,' 'beauty' and 'ugliness,' 'form' and 'content' are dichotomies which keep aestheticians busy and which totally confuse freshmen. Through the use of extensional methods we try to help the student discard two-valued orientations, and false-to-fact compartmentalizations. Stress is laid on the relativity of 'beauty' and the inseparability of 'emotion' and 'intellect.' Louis Danz's formulation of form as organization of forces is the one which is found most acceptable for our purposes. "Form is that kind of organization to which nothing can be added and from which nothing can be taken. A mathematical definition has form." (4)

The large part of the course deals with non-verbal forms of representation. In a world where so much stress is laid upon word symbols, this gives us a peculiar opportunity to convey to the student the vital, dynamic quality of nonverbal thalamic communication. That people generally do sense this is made apparent in such expressions as "too moved for words," "speechless with joy," etc.

In some quarters the term semantics covers only words and their 'meanings,' which would rule out most of our course as far as tying it up with semantics is concerned. If this is the proper and full meaning of the term, we can apply the 'rules' of semantics only to our talking about art and not to the actual 'art experience' or thalamic communication. On the other hand, general semantics as a general theory of evaluation is found to be applicable to our entire field, non-verbal as well as verbal.

We try to stress the fact that the organism reacts as-a-whole-in-an-environment, so that in highly affective communication of the non-verbal type there is a cortical component, which, with its potentialities for differentiation, makes for the exquisite discrimination and enjoyment of a given 'aesthetic experience.' This is in contrast to sitting in the concert hall and being aroused out of one's stupor only by the spinal shiver caused by a sudden cymbal crash.

Standards for criticism and judgment pose another difficult problem for presentation to the beginner. I am reminded of Virgil Thomson's classification of possible ways for a composer to earn his living, one of which was listed as the "art appreciation racket." (5) We hope to avoid being placed in the category of "racketeer" from our earnest endeavors with this course. And, if we do successfully steer clear of such a fate, it is in no small part due to general semantics.

It has been said that one's youth, 'artistically' speaking, can be described as being in direct proportion to the range of aesthetic experiences one can 'endure.' If this is so, some of our seventeen-year-olds are artistically well over a hundred. They don't know anything about art but they know what they like, etc., showing evidence of rigid thinking. So we endeavor to present a vivid picture of "culture lag." Although this is a course in modern art, we stress the time-binding human function of all artistic representation. With the hope that the student will broaden her horizon and avoid 'cosmic legislation' in the fields of the arts, we set up the following bases for judgment of a given art object:

1) direct contact with the object or event;

2) comparison of the object or event with others in the same class;

3) evaluation, which for the lay person may be summed up in the questions: Does it communicate anything to me? If so, what?

We emphasize the necessity for differentiation-recognition of the unique character of each art 'object,' as well as the impossibility of knowing 'all' about any art object. We make no endeavor to establish the arts as the equivalent of mathematics, but do make use of the extensional devices in talking about the arts. Dating, of course, is necessary and it will automatically delay an immediate judgment such as "beauty pretty pink curves!" as well as the "Beauty on Olympus swung free from the lowly human" notion, when the student reader sees the word beauty on the page. Each of the devices is found to be useful for our purposes in this course.

With this rather sketchy introduction to general semantics we plunge headlong into the specialized consideration of the various fields of modern art, as before mentioned. In the discussions following the lectures, we attempt to practise the extensional method.

The final section of the course is concerned with literature, at which time we use Language in Action by Hayakawa as the text. (6) In many ways, this is the most exciting period of the course. The 'fog' which confused the first of the course has lifted, and we realize that more was learned than we had suspected. The simplicity and clarity of Language in Action is a boon. Not one of the students has failed to derive much benefit from its study. The exercises in the construction of 'abstraction ladders' have been the source of delight and amusement as well as instruction. On the final examination the students were asked to write five short paragraphs using the techniques of:

1) slanting for,

2) slanting against,

3) map not matching territory,

4) affective communication,

5) directive language.

They all enjoyed doing this very much but gave away their personal biases in the way of girlish enthusiasms, pet peeves, etc.

I believe that, for the artist as well as for the student of aesthetics, Hayakawa's formulation of affective communication is extremely helpful. As a matter of terminology I find his use of the phrase "pre-symbolic use of language" confusing in the face of our belief that gesture, posture, movement, sound are all symbolic forms of representation. However, if I have studied his book thoroughly and have come to understand his use of the term "pre-symbolic," then my very understanding of his use of the term in a special context does away with confusion and all I can say is that his definition of "pre-symbolic" and "symbolic" differs from mine, and communication is established.

In conclusion, may I say that our foremost purpose in giving this course is to help student[.sub.1], student[.sub.2], student[.sub.3], ... to increase adaptability to the 'world' in which she finds herself. As an aid for this adaptability general semantics is applicable. It provides a general theory of evaluation which includes the silent, organismal reactions of aesthetic experience as well as providing a correct-to-fact linguistic technique for the representation and communication of those experiences. In using this methodology to forward our aim, we have laid particular stress on the importance of a thorough understanding on the part of the student of the multiordinality of terms such as abstraction, representation, etc., for proper evaluation and unification of the conflicting vocabularies used by staff lecturers from various fields of the arts. It is my earnest personal conviction that the study of general semantics is of immeasurable aid in the accomplishment of our purpose.

NOTES

1. Sheldon Cheney, Primer of Modern Art (New York: Liverigbt, 1939), p.172.

2. General Semantics as formulated by Alfred Korzybski in Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics (Second edition; Lancaster, Penn.: The Science Press Printing Co., 1941), and in his seminars at the Institute of General Semantics and elsewhere.

3. Ernest Kretchmer, A Textbook of Medical Psychology (London: Oxford University Press, 1934), p.94.

4. Louis Danz, The Psychologist Looks at Art (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1937), p.80.

5. Virgil Thomson. The State of Music (New York: W. Morrow and Co., 1939). pp.121 ff.

6. S.I. Hayakawa, Language in Action (New York: Harcourt. Brace and Co., 1941)

From Papers from the Second American Congress for General Semantics, August 1-2, 1941, Denver, Colorado. Marian Van Tuyl was Assistant Professor of Dance, Mills College, Oakland, California.