“Aesthetics Is for the Artists Like Ornithology Is for the Birds“
Explore More About Barnett Newman
If you’re interested in learning more about Barnett Newman and their impact on history, here are some recommended resources:
- Barnett Newman: Here
- The Sublime Is Now: The Early Work of Barnett Newman
- Reconsidering Barnett Newman by Melissa Ho (2005-05-10)
- Barnett Newman: Zim Zum II
- Mark Rothko and Barnett Newman: The Sublime is Now!
- BARNETT NEWMAN DIE DRUCKGRAPHIK 1961-1969 /ALLEMAND
- Barnett Newman, Joseph Beuys, Cy Twombly, Yves Klein, Jasper Johns, with texts from Chuang Tzu by Barnett Newman (1994-01-02)
- Barnett Newman and Heideggerian Philosophy by Claude Cernuschi (2012-03-22)
- Memoirs of a Revolutionist with Introductions By Paul Goodman and Barnett Newman
- Barnett Newman: Selected Writings and Interviews
- Piet Mondrian – Barnett Newman – Dan Flavin (German Edition)
- SOTHEBY’S CONTEMPORARY ART EVENING AUCTION NEW YORK 14 MAY 2013 (including barnett newman’s onement vl 1953 and gerhard richter’s domplatz mailand 1968)
As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
s
Understanding the Art and Ornithology Metaphor
The phrase “Aesthetics is for the artists like ornithology is for the birds” cleverly highlights the disconnect between creators and theorists. Artists often view theoretical analysis with skepticism, much like birds would ignore scientific studies about them. This sentiment captures the irony of applying academic scrutiny to natural, instinctive processes.
Historical Context and Origins
The phrase is frequently attributed to Barnett Newman, a leading figure in abstract expressionism. Source Newman’s original articulation of this concept occurred during the Woodstock Art Conference in 1952. He expressed his skepticism towards aesthetic philosophy, suggesting that art should not be constrained by theoretical frameworks .
The Evolution of the Phrase
Initially, Newman’s statement was more verbose than the concise version we know today. It took several years for his words to transform into the neat analogy widely recognized. By 1955, an article in Art in America reported a more refined version of the phrase, possibly crafted by author Dorothy Gees Seckler. This version succinctly expressed Newman’s disdain for art theory, comparing it to ornithology’s irrelevance to birds.
Attribution Challenges
Over time, the aphorism’s attribution became muddled. In 1957, David Durst referenced the saying in the College Art Journal, attributing it to an unnamed Boston painter. This ambiguous attribution possibly referenced Newman, given his participation in the same conference where the saying originated.
In 1961, Frederic James, an American painter, mentioned the phrase in a Kansas City Times article. However, he credited an anonymous artist, further complicating the attribution. The phrase continued to circulate, appearing in various publications and contexts, each time with slight variations in authorship.
Cultural Impact and Misattributions
The phrase’s enduring appeal lies in its wit and succinctness. Source It resonated beyond the art world, appearing in discussions about biography and science. For example, physicist Steven Weinberg adapted it to critique the philosophy of science’s relevance to actual scientific practice .
Despite the misattributions, the phrase remains a powerful commentary on the tension between creation and critique. It underscores the idea that art, like nature, thrives on instinct and creativity rather than theoretical constructs.
Conclusion
The saying “Aesthetics is for the artists like ornithology is for the birds” epitomizes the artist’s frustration with academic analysis. Its journey through cultural discourse reflects the complexities of attribution and the lasting impact of succinct, evocative expressions. While the origins may be debated, the phrase continues to resonate, highlighting the enduring divide between creators and commentators.