In order to conclude a project whose purpose is to understand a work of art by evaluating it from diverse theoretical perspectives, these ways of seeing must be conclusively aggregated towards a best evaluation. I began my project of understanding Brass Standing Figure of a 1000-Armed Avalokitesvara with 11 Heads (Avalokitesvara) by documenting my immediate impression of the statue; what I saw and how I reacted; and by detailing my intellectual response to the work upon reflection; what information was missing from my understanding of the work, and what questions I would need to ask in order to get this information. To answer these questions, I began by evaluating the Avalokitesvara using an intentionalist theory of art, scrutinizing the psychological states and processes of the artist for explanations of the work. Responding to the shortcomings of the intentionalist evaluation, I evaluated the Avalokitesvara using a non-intentionalist theory of art, examining the iconography found in the work by referencing the ideologies of 18th century Tibet and Mahayana Buddhism. Surprisingly, both of these theories leave the most important questions about the work unanswered: what is of aesthetic or artistic value in the work, how do we as receivers of the work appreciate that value, and is the art good? I feel that intentionalist and non-intentionalist theories alike promote a misguided attempt to appreciate art by understanding it. To the contrary, I conclude that we can best appreciate the Avalokitesvara not by understanding it, but by experiencing it; experiencing the Avalokitesvara consists in a reasonable emotional exchange with the artist whereby the work is allowed to "lend its meaning to [our] meaning" (Berger 20). After experiencing the Avalokitesvara, I conclude that it is good insofar as it successfully communicates emotion, which is the proper activity of art (Tolstoy 171).
The Limits of Intentionalist Theory
Intentionalist theories of art hold that an understanding of the artist's psychological states and processes in creating a work of art is a crucial component of criticism. Using Richard Wollheim's theory of criticism as retrieval, I reconstructed the creative process of the Avalokitesvara and criticized it as a work of art intended to demonstrate the cultural and religious significance of the Buddhist deity Avalokitesvara. After thoroughly researching instances of Avalokitesvara in Tibetan mythology, Buddhist doctrines, and similar artworks, I concluded that the Avalokitesvara was a successful piece of art insofar as it was able to symbolize and impart the fundamental qualities attributed to its subject. However, after further consideration of possible sources of aesthetic and artistic value, I was persuaded otherwise: to the extent that the Avalokitesvara was intended to be representational of the aforementioned qualities, it succeeds as craft, not as art. I chose to classify the work as craft with respect to these intentions because every one of these qualities was mandated in what I call "a rubric for bodhisattva imagery;" conventions derived from other representations of Avalokitesvara found in Buddhist art, and instructions communicated to the creator of the work through religious doctrines. In fewer words, the representation of Avalokitesvara is coincidental to the proper work of the artist; therefore, the representation does not qualify the work as art. This new conclusion has influenced my preference for art that is intended to be individual rather than categorical. Retrieval, and other intentionalist theories of art, asks us to understand factors extrinsic to the work before evaluating it, and it is clear that these methods can lead us away from the artistic or aesthetic value of the work itself.
The Paradox of Non-Intentionalist Theory
After evaluating the Avalokitesvara from an intentionalist perspective, I used a non-intentionalist approach to understand the representation of Avalokitesvara in terms of the ideologies of 18th century Tibet and Mahayana Buddhism. This ideological perspective allowed me to see the extent to which assumptions tacitly held by the artist and these groups in general determined the Avalokitesvara. I found this determination to be absolute after demonstrating a prejudice held by Mahayana Buddhists against secular members of Tibetan society, citing foundations of the Tibeto-Burman language in Buddhist doctrines, and speculating as to how these factors would have constrained the artist's decisions about how to represent Avalokitesvara. While this non-intentionalist perspective held the key to a culturally contextualized understanding of the Avalokitesvara, it did not unlock the door to a better artistic or aesthetic appreciation of the work. In fact, the more profound understanding it enabled only moved the Avalokitesvara further from my experience, alienating me from the work. It was this paradoxical identity between confusion and understanding that prompted me to seek an alternative method of appreciating artistic and aesthetic value in the Avalokitesvara. This method of appreciation is predicated on an emotional response to the work, and consequent meaning-making on behalf of the observer. It does not demand that the observer understand the work, a requirement that I found misleading in both intentionalist and non-intentionalist theories. Furthermore, this way of seeing is selective for art that is emotionally viable, and can accordingly be used to make value judgments about the work; the work is good insofar as it performs the activity of art by communicating emotion (Tolstoy 171).
Appreciation Through Experience
In search of a means of appreciating the artistic and aesthetic value of the Avalokitesvara, I discovered two notions of artistic appreciation that I feel are unsurpassed in intuitiveness, inclusiveness, and profundity. The first notion of artistic appreciation belongs to Tolstoy, and is given as a functionalist account of art:
Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signals, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that other people are infected by these feelings and also experience them. (Tolstoy 171)
Berger gives the second notion of artistic appreciation with which I am concerned, when he remarks that in viewing an image, the image "lends its meaning to [our] meaning" (Berger 20). From these ideas of artistic appreciation, and my experience that understanding a work of art does not help us appreciate its artistic or aesthetic value, I conclude that we can best appreciate the Avalokitesvara, and all possible art, by experiencing it; experiencing an artwork consists in a reasonable emotional exchange with the artist, followed by a meaning-making on behalf of the observer.
By 'reasonable emotional exchange,' I mean that the observer should be expected to have an emotional response to the work that could reasonably have been the emotion the artist intended to communicate. If an artist depicts the death of her child in a painting, a reasonable emotional exchange would be one of grief, not of joy; perhaps the artist intended to be ironic, and in fact never cared for her child, but this is neither likely nor reasonable.
By 'meaning-making,' I mean that the observer should be cognizant of the emotional exchange and not simply let it pass. The observer should reflect on her response to the work, and, in the best case, discuss and compare her response with others towards a greater realization of the meaning of the work and how its meaning adds to hers.
Using Tolstoy's conception of art as a medium for communication of emotion, and Berger's notion of meaning-making, we are given a way to appreciate the artistic and aesthetic value of art that is valid for works from cultures other than our own, works where the artist's intentions are undiscoverable, and works which are in many other ways beyond our understanding.
The Value of the Avalokitesvara
By the method of appreciation by experience, I find that the Avalokitesvara's artistic and aesthetic value consists in the following attributes of the work and the emotional responses they evoke: the calmness of the Avalokitesvara portrayed; the eyes of the eleven heads are closed in meditation, and I felt peaceful and relaxed when I first noticed this. The statue's balance; the one thousand arms are arranged in such a way that, as I commented before, the Avalokitesvara appears lightweight. This reinforces the emotional response of calmness and peace. The apparent wisdom of the deity; I was unaware of the reason for Avalokitesvara's eleven heads when I first saw the work, but they ostend wisdom, which caused me to feel respectful. My meaning-making of the Avalokitesvara has previously been documented. The questions brought to mind in viewing the work and later reflections demonstrate how I would go about adding the meaning of the Avalokitesvara to my meaning. By communicating emotion, the Avalokitesvara succeeds in performing the activity of art, and is consequently found to be good art.
A Note on Museum Display
The curators of the Museum of Archeology and Anthropology of the University of Pennsylvania do not facilitate appreciating the Avalokitesvara by experiencing it. The statue is displayed against a wall, preventing the observer from choosing all but a small set of positions from which to view the work. Brass plaques surrounding the work explain the origins of the Avalokitesvara, but none of them tell me what I would see if I were able to look at the other side of the statue; what is arguably half of the artist's work is hidden from me by the aquamarine gallery wall. We must avoid such occlusion, and foster the activity of art.
The activity of art is based on the fact that a man, receiving through his sense of hearing or sight another man's expression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it… a man expresses his feelings of admiration, devotion, fear, respect, or love to certain objects, persons, or phenomena, and others are infected by the same feelings of admiration, devotion, fear, respect, or love to the same objects, persons, and phenomena. (Tolstoy 169)
These sorely neglected words of Berger's mark what I believe to be the most important notion in this course.
