aesthetics vs. misplaced emotion: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » aesthetics vs. misplaced emotion » aesthetics vs. misplaced emotion

aesthetics vs. misplaced emotion

noscholar
mumvoyeur

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 36

Posted 02/22/09 - 01:49 PM: Subject: aesthetics vs. misplaced emotion	#1
How can we determine that our response to an artwork is fair and reasonable in therms of the physical object as well as the intentions of the artist? Art consumers ae fond of reading in all manner of emotional responses to artwork. Emotional responses are suspect-they may be equated with religious epiphany-reactions that may be brought on by any manner of psychic or physical condition; heartburn from last nite's pizza for example. It may be claimed that a particular work of art makes one think deeply about important ideas. A pictorial representation, however, can only hint at broad ideas (except, possibly, in an esoteric way to a small group of privleged insiders). An artwork may spark memories of a personal nature, which may or may not endear it to the viewer. Even if the emotional, intellectual and/or personal responses can be fairly attributed to the artwork the likelihood is great that the responses have nothing to do with the artist's intentions. The only fair and honest reaction one can have to an artwork is aesthetic. An aesthetic communication is the only given between artist, artwork and viewer. Spare me, please, from having to read pontifications about wonderful artwork that moves one deeply. Comments?

StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 298

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 02/22/09 - 03:03 PM:	#2
You act as if just a single individual is able to make up the minds of everyone else in their culture. Art is accepted as art by a culture, not a person. If enough people agree its worthy to be art, it simply is. Its not much different than how a person accepts a piece of paper as being valuable enough to exchange for commodities. Spare me please a strawperson argument that attributes subjective values to art and then argues against them on the basis that it is a subjective value, and then has the nerve to taunt someone from offering a subjective experience of art in retort.
"All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." -Ecclesiastes 9:10 "Overpower, overcome." -The Cro-Mags

Bobard
remodernist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: May 04, 2008

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 187

Posted 02/22/09 - 03:53 PM:	#3
noscholar wrote: An aesthetic communication is the only given between artist, artwork and viewer. I think you are totally missing the point here, aesthetic communication is simply the conduit between consumer and provider and is only the starting point of any interlectual or emotional narrative the consumer may develop while engaging with the piece.
never argue with an idiot or a drunk

Bobard
remodernist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: May 04, 2008

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 187

Posted 02/22/09 - 04:03 PM:	#4
Why do you feel the need to pre-define and regulate your response to artwork and why are you so dismissive of emotional responses? As an artist it is easy for me to generate an interlectual narrative for a piece; generating and emotional one is far far harder but leads to much better work (imo). Why are you so quick to dismiss this? Without emotion art is a dry and barren pursuit. Actually I've just worked out what your post reminded me of! From Hard Times by Charles Dickens: ‘You are to be in all things regulated and governed,’ said the gentleman, ‘by fact. We hope to have, before long, a board of fact, composed of commissioners of fact, who will force the people to be a people of fact, and of nothing but fact. You must discard the word Fancy altogether. You have nothing to do with it. You are not to have, in any object of use or ornament, what would be a contradiction in fact. You don’t walk upon flowers in fact; you cannot be allowed to walk upon flowers in carpets. You don’t find that foreign birds and butterflies come and perch upon your crockery; you cannot be permitted to paint foreign birds and butterflies upon your crockery. You never meet with quadrupeds going up and down walls; you must not have quadrupeds represented upon walls. You must use,’ said the gentleman, ‘for all these purposes, combinations and modifications (in primary colours) of mathematical figures which are susceptible of proof and demonstration. This is the new discovery. This is fact. This is taste.’ http://www.online-literature.com/dickens/hardtimes/3/ Edited by Bobard on 02/22/09 - 04:29 PM
never argue with an idiot or a drunk

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.