Art, Beauty, and Emotions Theme Analysis

Nietzsche explores the relationship between art and emotional stimulation in his On the Genealogy of Morals. Many philosophers, like Kant, argue that recognizing beauty in art is only possible when humans maintain emotional distance from the art that we look at. Some philosophers, like Schopenhauer, even argue that the calm contemplation of beauty is the only mental space where humans can feel relief and solace from our relentless drive to constantly act. Nietzsche thinks such theorists only say these things because they know very little about the artistic endeavor, and they believe that humans (underneath all our messy emotions) should strive to be calm, rational beings. In fact, Nietzsche believes that the opposite is true: great art moves us, stimulates us, and stirs our emotions. In essence, it makes us feel alive, which is good. Philosophers who argue otherwise simply confuse what appeals to them with what appeals to everybody. Artists can also fall prey to this trap, and when they use their art to moralize against emotional and bodily desires (as operatic composer Wagner does), they make bad art. Nietzsche thus argues that when scholars claim that artistic contemplation should be more rational than emotional, or when artists use their art to moralize against emotional and bodily urges, they are actually expressing pathological values in society that advocate controlling one’s desires instead of expressing them, which is ultimately unhealthy.

Nietzsche thinks that philosophers (like Kant and Schopenhauer) who think the correct way to appreciate art is with emotional distance are mistaken and confused, because the artist’s great power lies in their ability to stimulate intense emotions. Kant argues that a person can only appreciate the objective beauty in art after they’ve stripped away anything personally (or subjectively) attractive or interesting to them. But to Nietzsche, Kant merely exposes that he hasn’t actually looked at much art at all. In fact, Nietzsche thinks that many philosophers assume that if they distance themselves from their own subjective “perspective”—meaning how things look and feel to them—that they’ll be able to see something as it really is, “in itself.” Nietzsche considers this nonsense, because a person can’t see something without seeing it “from a perspective,” or subjective viewpoint. To Nietzsche, Kant merely expresses a pathological fascination with “objectivity” rather than saying anything useful about artistic contemplation. Nietzsche says that Schopenhauer, who personally feels calm and serene when contemplating art, mistakenly thinks that everyone feels that way every time they experience art. Schopenhauer argues that when a person contemplates art, they become absorbed by its beauty and experience a sense of relief from the relentless feeling of striving (or “willing”) that he believes underpins human existence and all reality. Nietzsche agrees that some people can experience a calming sensation when looking at art, but that’s only one possible effect out of many. Nietzsche also points out that people can also become completely absorbed by many other things—such as sex or love—but Schopenhauer, who’s young, probably has little personal experience in those matters. Effectively, to Nietzsche, Schopenhauer confuses his personal experiences for general ones. Nietzsche argues that people who know about art—like the writer Stendhal—believe that appreciating the beauty in art entails appreciating how emotionally stimulating art can be. Art’s very power, to Nietzsche, lies in provoking and stimulating each person’s “strong desires, surprises and pleasures, in the realm of beauty,” meaning that artists help people understand what they personally find beautiful, stimulating, exciting, and moving. Nietzsche thus argues that people turn to art to feel more, not less.

Nietzsche also argues that artists (like Wagner) who use their art to moralize against emotional and bodily desires create bad, simplistic art that reflects a pathological obsession with Christian values like chastity, which are harmful to humanity. Nietzsche believes that great artists, like Hafiz and Goethe, show that the tension between the “animal” and “angel” in man captures one of “life’s charms,” which makes their art more sophisticated. Wagner, on the other hand, starts using his art to moralize against humanity’s “animal” desires as he grows older, thus making his art seem crude and pathological to Nietzsche. Nietzsche argues that Wagner’s earlier works, such as Luther’s Wedding, leverage the medium of opera to explore complex facets of humanity, like having the “courage” to be sensual. However, Wagner’s later work, like Parsifal, are one-note because he treats opera as a shallow vehicle for his own beliefs in Christian ideals like chastity.

To Nietzsche, artists like Wagner and philosophers like Kant and Schopenhauer merely reflect damaging social attitudes (informed by Christian values) that condemn intense emotional and bodily experiences, which are vital to living a happy life. Nietzsche argues that Wagner simply turns his characters (like Parsifal) into moralizing figures who shun life’s vital, intense experiences that bring humans joy—like love, sex, and passion—for Christian values of poverty, chastity, and humility. Kant and Schopenhauer, meanwhile, transfigure the Christian fascination with holding back (from emotional and bodily experiences) into pushing a calm, emotionally distant, “rational” agenda. Such thinkers thus undermine artists’ power to do the exact opposite: namely, to show how exciting, stimulating, complex, and joyful life can be. Ultimately, Nietzsche argues that artists and philosophers who try to undermine art’s ability to capture, stimulate, and champion complex emotional intensity are doing a disservice to their culture.