Dewey Response

I found Dewey’s essay a cautionary look at the vagaries of philosophical theory. Broad sweeping language such as order, rhythm and balance held no significance due to their lack of specificity in definition and in example. True, there were moments of clarity through his references to the fine art of Renoir and Matisse, the literature of Austen and Shakespeare, and some dustings of musical knowledge; however, as a musician and someone interested in literature, his examples seemed too convenient and again, broad.

Also, according to whose value-systems of order, rhythm, and balance are we going by? From what I can infer from his examples of Greek architecture it would be the Western form of Art--a standard I myself conform to unfortunately, but one that I am wary of due to its hierarchical prejudices.

What I suppose Dewey is speaking of is a sort of universal language that can be achieved in a work of art so that the viewer or audience member is allowed to intuit for themselves a meaning significant to them. And I do agree that there has to be some degree of layering and variation so that the artist’s reason for making their creation does not come off too bluntly.

I think what also might be missing is the knowledge that the overall trajectory of Dewey’s work is showing the link between art and everyday experience as being inextricably bound. If you look at Dewey’s successor, Allan Kaprow and his book The Blurring of Art and Everday Life, because Kaprow is an artist himself, his message, in my opinion, comes off more cleanly.