Existentialism in Art

Understanding the “burning 

question” of the 1940s and beyond 

. 

The author and philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre 

referred to his own work as embodying the 

“existentialist” idea. He had many people in 

his intellectual circle, and a number of them 

adopted the idea as a governing principle, and 

it came to refer to their ideology in general. 

This was roughly during the 1940s and 1950s. 

. 

Not every philosopher or artist was a willing 

member of this new “existentialist” group. 

Many were lumped into the movement 

against their protests (Albert Camus and 

Martin Heidegger, for example), while others 

were simply swept along by the timing and 

similarity of their works (Kafka, Ibsen, Beckett, 

and Dostoevsky) 

. 

In previous, classical philosophical discussions, 

all attempts to define what it means to be a 

human being came from two possible 

approaches: 

We are defined by our means of interacting with the 

world around us, which we can do in two ways. We can 

either consider our behavior through the laws of nature 

and (physically) or through the laws of ethics and 

morals (morally). In either case, we are defined based 

on our INTERACTIONS. 

. 

The existentialist position is that neither of those 

modes of thinking are sufficient to “fully capture 

what makes me, myself, my “ownmost” self. 

Without denying the validity of scientific 

categories (governed by the norm of truth) or 

moral categories (governed by norms of the good 

and the right), “existentialism” may be defined as 

the philosophical theory which holds that a 

further set of categories, governed by the norm 

of authenticity, is necessary to grasp human 

existence.” SDP, “Existentialism” 

. 

To simplify, to understand what it means to be 

human is more than understanding the 

scientific and moral laws of humanity. It 

requires understanding the essential youness 

of being you, that element that cannot be 

captured in objective science but must be 

sought through SUBJECTIVE, PASSIONATE 

examination. 

. 

Sartre’s motto, this phrase indicates what the 

author saw as a fundamental issue: We 

cannot say what it means to be human, 

because we create that meaning by the way 

we live as humans. In other words, we do not 

have a “standard” existence, but one that 

varies wildly according to the conditions 

affecting it. 

. 

"What is meant here by saying that existence precedes 

essence? It means that, first of all, the human 

individual exists, turns up, appears in the world, and, 

only afterwards, defines himself. If the human 

individual, as the existentialist thinks of him, is 

indefinable, it is because at first he is nothing. Only 

afterward will he be something, and he himself will 

have made what he will be. Thus, there is no human 

nature, since there is no God to conceive of it. Not only 

is the human individual what he conceives himself to 

be, but he is also only what he wills himself to be after 

this thrust toward existence." (Sartre, Existentialism, 

481-2) 

. 

Authenticity defines a condition on self-making: do I 

succeed in making myself, or will who I am merely be a 

function of the roles I find myself in? 

. 

Committal to a role vs. the acceptance of a part 

. 

The inauthentic person, in contrast, merely occupies 

such a role, and may do so “irresolutely,” without 

commitment. 

. 

Authenticity is not synonymous with effectiveness, 

only with engagement. Being a father authentically 

does not necessarily make me a better father, but what 

it means to be a father has become explicitly my 

concern. 

. 

There is no one, specific authentic path for a human 

being . nothing that can be thought of as a norm or 

standard. Rather, authenticity considers the question 

of whether I am, in pursuing a project, doing so in a 

committed manner (making it “my own”) or as merely 

a placeholder who is doing “what one does” to fit in. 

. 

The possibility of authenticity is a mark of my freedom; 

I can choose my level of commitment as well as my 

physical connection and moral position. 

Sartre says that humans are not like objects. We 

are free to choose our paths and are “selfcreating” 

(in that we pick how we behave 

once we begin to exist), and thus, unlike 

objects, we are responsible for our own 

actions and choices. 

. 

Since we are thus responsible for our choices 

as individuals, we also must recognize that our 

individual choices have global impact . 

the 

choices each of us make affect everyone else, 

and therefore we are each responsible both 

for ourselves and for all of humanity. 

.Since I am responsible for both myself and the 

rest of the world, and since I have no one to 

turn to for help or instructions (since there is 

no divine force giving us moral or physical 

guidance in this paradigm), I am therefore 

doomed to live a life of 

.Since I am responsible for both myself and the 

rest of the world, and since I have no one to 

turn to for help or instructions (since there is 

no divine force giving us moral or physical 

guidance in this paradigm), I am therefore 

doomed to live a life of 

The feeling that one is responsible for the 

entirety of the world, and that one’s choices 

are thus of overwhelming importance. We 

cannot escape our responsibilities, which 

loom over everything we do and color us with 

endless feelings of doubt and question. 

A reaction to the absence of a god-figure in our 

world. We are ultimately alone in the 

universe with nothing but ourselves for 

guidance. This, given the people around us, is 

a scary, lonely thought. 

Implications of the nonexistence 

of God: 

No foundation for objective & absolute 

values. 

All values are human creations. 

Man is “condemned to be free.” 

We are alone, with no justifications & no 

excuses. 

Dostoevsky: "If God does not exist, then 

everything is permitted." 

Since we must rely on others, and since others 

are essentially out of our control, yet we still 

are by definition responsible for ourselves and 

for everyone else, this creates a situation 

where we cannot possibly see how we can 

meet our responsibilities adequately, and thus 

we feel a sense of hopelessness and futility. 

(bummer.) 

Comment (and Questions) on 

Sartre's Atheism 

□ 

There is a difference between Sartre's atheism and the theism of philosophers like Anselm of 

Canterbury, or Thomas Aquinas, or Rene Descartes: The latter offer *philosophical arguments* 

in support of their belief in the reality of God. Sartre offers no arguments or reasons in support 

of his atheism. He has been called a "postulatory atheist," which means that he simply 

"postulates" (assumes without proof) the non existence of God and goes on from there. If God 

does not exist, he reasons, then we are on our own, and we must face up to the fact that a life 

without God, if lived honestly, is a life full of anxiety, forlornness, and despair. If we don't face 

up to that, then we are not taking the non existence of God seriously enough. We are not facing 

up to the full and real implications of being completely on our own in a meaningless universe. If 

we don't face up to that, then we are in serious denial we are, truly, kidding ourselves. 

□ 

Sartre never gives any reasons for thinking that God does not exist. He does not find God 

present in his experience (phenomenologically considered). He just *postulates* the non 

existence of God. He feels no obligation to prove that God does not exist. He probably thinks 

that that the *burden of proof* for the *existence* of God is on the theists, and he no doubt does 

not find any of the theistic arguments (e.g., of Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, etc.) persuasive. 

□ 

What is “phenomenology”? Phenomenology, in simple terms, is the study of our conscious 

experience from a first person point of view. It is the manner in which we experience the world, 

and is thus FUNDAMENTALLY SUBJECTIVE, as opposed to other philosophical approaches 

such as ontology (the study of what exists), logic (the study of reasoning), or ethics (the study 

of moral values). When Sartre says God is not present in his experience, he means that he has 

never subjectively experienced God, and thus cannot prove or disprove his presence himself. 

He rather chooses to assume the negative, that God does not exist, based on that experience. 

Comment (and Questions) on 

Sartre's Atheism 

□ 

However, Sartre is an atheist with a difference. He is not happy that God does not exist. Without 

God, we must live in anxiety, forlornness, and despair on our own, with no ultimate guidance, 

and also with no excuses for ourselves. Each one of us finds her/himself totally responsible for 

her/his existence. 

□ 

By contrast, thinkers such as Descartes (Cogito, ergo sum I think, therefore I am, which is 

itself a fairly clear example of phenomenology) and St. Thomas Aquinas argued that God does 

exist, although perhaps not in ways that we would ourselves come to those conclusions. 

Descartes, for example, argued that God must exist, essentially, because 

1. 

We can conceive of God. 

2. 

We cannot imagine something that does not in some way exist. 

3. 

Hence, God exists. 

4. 

God is perfect, by the definition of God. 

5. 

All things must have a cause or beginning, by the definition of experience. 

6. 

The idea of what constitutes something perfect, therefore, must come from 

somewhere, but since humans are imperfect, something other than humans must 

have been the cause of the idea of the perfect, or we wouldn’t be able to conceive of 

perfection. 

7. 

A perfect being is the only thing that could produce the idea of the perfect, so… 

8. 

God exists. 

□ 

This, of course, proves that the idea of God exists, but isn’t necessarily going to convince a 

skeptic, who will say that idea and actual are not necessarily the same. Since there is no proof 

of the actual God, we’re back to square one and existential angst all over again. 

(Again, thanks to Prof. Cronk for this slide) 

. 

Note that not all existentialists were atheists like Sartre. 

some felt that existentialism did not preclude the belief in a 

divine figure. Indeed, they argue that because of the very 

elements that make existentialists existentialists.the need 

for personal responsibility, freedom of choice, and the 

inability to know the truth.we must instead choose to 

make the “leap of faith” to believe in a divine force. This is 

known as “theistic existentialism”, and differs in that it 

believes that, while life is absurd and without knowable 

meaning, that a meaning DOES exist.just beyond our 

understanding. Hence, we put our FAITH in the divine as 

the means to reach that meaning. 

. 

Major players include Soren Kierkegaard, Martin Buber, and 

Reinhold Niebuhr. 

. 

Kierkegaard argued that humans may achieve three stages of 

awareness during their lives: 

1. 

Aesthetic . 

at this level, where most people remain all their lives, 

we enjoy intellectual pursuits or self-reflectiveness, but fail to see 

beyond ourselves and our own interests 

2. 

Ethical.at this level, we become aware of good and evil and take 

personal responsibility for dealing with it and the world as a whole. 

Ethical people act in a consistent and coherent manner and consider 

their actions as part of a societal whole. To commit to ethics is to 

commit to a life of purpose and passion. 

3. 

Religious.the highest level, this stage begins with an awareness of 

human sinfulness, and that salvation requires that God, a 

transcendent ideal, make himself subject to time and space 

paradoxically for the sake of humanity. This notion is so against all 

human reasoning as to be horrifying, but is the price humanity costs 

God, and why we owe so much to God as a result. 

Existentialism in Art 

Blue (Moby Dick) . 

Jackson Pollock, 1943 

Existentialism in Art 

Willem de Kooning . 

Woman and 

Bicycle (1953) 

Existentialist-influenced music and film 

. 

Jim Morrison, The Doors 

. 

Trent Reznor, Nine Inch Nails 

. 

Fight Club (and pretty much everything by 

Chuck Palahniuk) 

MAJOR THEME: THE STRUGGLE OF THE 

INDIVIDUAL TO FIT IN IN A WORLD OF 

HOPELESSNESS AND ABSURDITY