Bell on Hume: Bell presents an idea of a progressive form of Hume's ideal critic. The main difference being this; while Hume's true critics were depended on to convey the true values of art, Bell says otherwise. While he certainly agrees that a select few can truly judge art for what it is worth, he says that no other person can enforce his or her view upon him. Bell goes on to say that these critics can only point out subtleties in art that escape the casual observer. And in shedding light on the intricacies of art, he says that through this can a critic help an observer redefine his view of the art.
Bell on Plato: Much like Plato, Bell discusses his view of aesthetic emotion being, out of human life. His term "significant form," certainly eludes to Plato's world of forms, the transcendent world of arts. Bell and Plato both agree that art is in a realm altogether seperate from everyday emotions and everyday life. Bell continues to describe this "kingdom," in which the experience of emotion and form will transport the viewer to said place, which brings us to his ultimate claim, reminiscent of Tolstoy.
Bell on Tolstoy: Bell continues to expand upon the concept of the timelessness of art and the places that the world of art can take one, as it is not grounded in human life or human emotion. He eventually leads to his statement that, "art might prove the world's salvation," (Bell, 269) which screams Tolstoy. It would only make sense that two people, who have Platonic views on the sperate realm of art, could see such a transcendent power of experience, proving the world's salvation. In fact, seeing as Bell sees art as timeless, would that not prove, in his eyes at least, that the most unifying of all ideas on earth to be something that lasts forever? Something that transcends culture, time, and generations of different peoples? If you think about it, the salvation of the world only seems like the next logical step to take, for such philosophers as Tolstoy and Bell, who clearly value it so much as to place it beyond the grasp of normal human experience.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
How does Bell present views that both favor and put down the average viewer of art?
In his writings, Clive Bell comes across as slightly high flown, to put it mildly, yet his lenience to accept that everyone can experience art is unlike many who share his same opinions about the realm of art.
"They have their moments of pure ecstasy; but the moments are short and unsure. Soon they fall back into the world of human interests and feel emotions, good no doubt, but inferior" (Bell, 268).
In this section Bell takes on a more Platonic view of ill equipped art observers, which seems as if it fits in more with his theories on the expertise it takes to truly and consistently recognize and judge the significant form, or absence thereof, in art. He acknowledges a slight experience, but not one nearly as fulfilling as one of a seasoned artist or art critic.
"For, to appreciate a work of art we need bring with us nothing from life, no knowledge of its ideas and affairs, no familiarity with its emotions" (Bell, 266).
While Bell also implies a good understanding of the art itself to experience the aesthetic emotion to its fullest extent, this quotation takes a much more empathetic approach to the casual observer of art. While the experience may be fleeting or inchoate, Bell acknowledges the ability of anyone to experience art, to at least a certain degree, unlike many of his predecessors. He allows any person of any intellectual level to have the credit of being able to experience art, as it is truly an experience that relies on the individual emotions of the viewer, and little else.
Why does Bell separate beauty and aesthetically pleasing art, and for what reasons?
"Clearly the word 'beauty' is used to connote the objects of quite distinguishable emotions, and that is a reason for not employing a term which would land me inevitably in confusions and misunderstandings with my readers" (Bell, 264).
Bell distinguishes beauty from aesthetic emotion and significant form, simply because of his views on the use of beauty in today's society. While Bell clearly sees art and the emotion and forms involved as transcendent, we often use beauty to describe flowers, certain people, and the like. All of which, by the way, are objects and people that we encounter in everyday life, in our everyday experiences.
While this is definitely a Dewey-esque view on beauty, it would make sense that Bell would see it the other way. Bell sees the significance of beauty as stipulated to be intertwined in nature and human beings, so it makes perfect sense that he distances himself from the use of the word, as it would be contradictory, for his views at least.
Bell distinguishes beauty from aesthetic emotion and significant form, simply because of his views on the use of beauty in today's society. While Bell clearly sees art and the emotion and forms involved as transcendent, we often use beauty to describe flowers, certain people, and the like. All of which, by the way, are objects and people that we encounter in everyday life, in our everyday experiences.
While this is definitely a Dewey-esque view on beauty, it would make sense that Bell would see it the other way. Bell sees the significance of beauty as stipulated to be intertwined in nature and human beings, so it makes perfect sense that he distances himself from the use of the word, as it would be contradictory, for his views at least.
TA's Question on Bell
How does Clive Bell establish that the aesthetic world is a "world with emotions of its own" in which "the emotions of life find no place" (267)? Do you think he explains this fully? Can you think of reasons or examples as to why he is right/wrong?
Bell states, "We seem to have recognized intellectually the rightness of its forms without staying to fix our attention, and collect, as it were, their emotional significance. If this were so, it would be permissible to inquire whether it was the forms themselves or our perception of their rightness and necessity that caused aesthetic emotion" (Bell, 266).
Bell compares inherent recognition of forms to a mathmetician in the heat of his work. Now, he goes on to imply that the forms themselves, much like mathematical equations, are timeless. For the Pythagorean Theorem worked exactly for us as it did for Pythagoras. He states that like this, great significant form is timeless, and not attached to any particular culture either. In this way, of being devoid of time and human life, does he then make his otherworldly statements. Bell elaborates on pure aesthetic emotion, which he thinks is much different from recalling previous experiences or feelings, and in this do we see light shed on the "peculiar" aesthetic emotion. This is another premise to his conclusion that emotions are in a world of their own, and that they have no place in life.
Bell states, "We seem to have recognized intellectually the rightness of its forms without staying to fix our attention, and collect, as it were, their emotional significance. If this were so, it would be permissible to inquire whether it was the forms themselves or our perception of their rightness and necessity that caused aesthetic emotion" (Bell, 266).
Bell compares inherent recognition of forms to a mathmetician in the heat of his work. Now, he goes on to imply that the forms themselves, much like mathematical equations, are timeless. For the Pythagorean Theorem worked exactly for us as it did for Pythagoras. He states that like this, great significant form is timeless, and not attached to any particular culture either. In this way, of being devoid of time and human life, does he then make his otherworldly statements. Bell elaborates on pure aesthetic emotion, which he thinks is much different from recalling previous experiences or feelings, and in this do we see light shed on the "peculiar" aesthetic emotion. This is another premise to his conclusion that emotions are in a world of their own, and that they have no place in life.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
The Compartmentalization of Art
"Compartmentalization of occupations and interests brings about separation of that mode of activity commonly called "practice" from insight, of imagination from executive doing, of significant purpose from work, of emotion from thought and doing. Each of these has, too, its own place in which it must abide. Those who write the anatomy of experience then suppose that these divisions inhere in the very constitution of human nature" (Dewey, 301).
Dewey poses a few questions before his assertion on the compartmentalization of art, namely, why is the attempt to connect the higher and ideal things of experience with basic vital roots so often regarded as betrayal of their nature and denial of their virtue? Why is there repulsion when the high achievements of fine art are brought into connection with common life?
Dewey states that the institution of mankind is a very disorganized; hence, stratifying social classes, and institutions for every group of ideas or endeavors. Other ideas that have been compartmentalized are often regarded as good, and bad, or high, and low. These include, materialistic and ideal, profane and spiritual, ect. Dewey suggests that in our efforts to organize an incredibly disorganized world, we assign "correct" interpretations to everything, and eventually, these preordained compartments ensure the second-handness of our experiences. Ethics, politics, business, religion, and art as well, in their private realms, shed the light of what they think is good and bad, valuable, and the opposite.
"Of much of our experience as it is actually lived under present economic and legal institutional conditions, it is only true that these separations hold. Only occasionally in the lives of many are the senses fraught with the sentiment that comes from deep realization...we undergo sensations...without having a sense of the reality that is in them and behind them...we see without feeling; we hear, but only a second-hand report, second hand because not reenforced by vision" (Dewey, 301).
Dewey poses a few questions before his assertion on the compartmentalization of art, namely, why is the attempt to connect the higher and ideal things of experience with basic vital roots so often regarded as betrayal of their nature and denial of their virtue? Why is there repulsion when the high achievements of fine art are brought into connection with common life?
Dewey states that the institution of mankind is a very disorganized; hence, stratifying social classes, and institutions for every group of ideas or endeavors. Other ideas that have been compartmentalized are often regarded as good, and bad, or high, and low. These include, materialistic and ideal, profane and spiritual, ect. Dewey suggests that in our efforts to organize an incredibly disorganized world, we assign "correct" interpretations to everything, and eventually, these preordained compartments ensure the second-handness of our experiences. Ethics, politics, business, religion, and art as well, in their private realms, shed the light of what they think is good and bad, valuable, and the opposite.
"Of much of our experience as it is actually lived under present economic and legal institutional conditions, it is only true that these separations hold. Only occasionally in the lives of many are the senses fraught with the sentiment that comes from deep realization...we undergo sensations...without having a sense of the reality that is in them and behind them...we see without feeling; we hear, but only a second-hand report, second hand because not reenforced by vision" (Dewey, 301).
TA's Question on Dewey
Consider what Dewey has to say about the human experience, emotions, and the influence art has on these. Following Dewey's logic, what implications does capitalism then have not only on art, but on the human psyche and even humanity in general?
Do you think he has a point?
Give a possible solution to this dilemma.
Dewey's definitions of an experience say a lot about his opinions on human experience, emotions, and the influence of art. He talks about the fulfillment and lasting experiences of "real experiences." He speaks of the influence of art as indelible instances in our memory, ones which we constantly recall upon.
"The growth of capitalism has been a powerful influence in the development of the museum as the proper home of works of art, and in the promotion of the idea that they are apart from the common life...These things reflect and establish superior cultural status, while their segregation from the common life reflects the fact that they are not part of a native and spontaneous culture...The mobility of trade and of populations, due to the economic system, has weakened or destroyed the connection between works of art and genius loci of which they were once the natural expression"(Dewey, 299).
I think that the continuity, flow, and beauty of origins that Dewey favors in a true experience of art is lost in the economic and societal battle for approval in the world of "fine art." The original beauty is lost when the most expensive art is collected, setting a bar based on wealth, and a culture based on the power of the groups of individuals collecting the art.
With that being said, I do not think Dewey is referring to museums of natural history, merely museums of fine art. I also think that any solution, no matter how practical, would be futile, however unfortunate that may be. Our globalized world gets smaller and smaller every day, and the only common denominator of who gets what, and what is "fine art," and what is not, is money and power. Attempting to "deregulate" such museums, collections, and galleries would be very difficult. For the sake of the argument, I would say that the best solution to the problem would be lower the economic barriers to the fine art. By making fine art and "common" art available to anyone, without difficulty, the general population would once again be able to decipher for itself the beauty of art, without being biased or predisposed to what the art is worth, or where it is being showed or displayed.
Do you think he has a point?
Give a possible solution to this dilemma.
Dewey's definitions of an experience say a lot about his opinions on human experience, emotions, and the influence of art. He talks about the fulfillment and lasting experiences of "real experiences." He speaks of the influence of art as indelible instances in our memory, ones which we constantly recall upon.
"The growth of capitalism has been a powerful influence in the development of the museum as the proper home of works of art, and in the promotion of the idea that they are apart from the common life...These things reflect and establish superior cultural status, while their segregation from the common life reflects the fact that they are not part of a native and spontaneous culture...The mobility of trade and of populations, due to the economic system, has weakened or destroyed the connection between works of art and genius loci of which they were once the natural expression"(Dewey, 299).
I think that the continuity, flow, and beauty of origins that Dewey favors in a true experience of art is lost in the economic and societal battle for approval in the world of "fine art." The original beauty is lost when the most expensive art is collected, setting a bar based on wealth, and a culture based on the power of the groups of individuals collecting the art.
With that being said, I do not think Dewey is referring to museums of natural history, merely museums of fine art. I also think that any solution, no matter how practical, would be futile, however unfortunate that may be. Our globalized world gets smaller and smaller every day, and the only common denominator of who gets what, and what is "fine art," and what is not, is money and power. Attempting to "deregulate" such museums, collections, and galleries would be very difficult. For the sake of the argument, I would say that the best solution to the problem would be lower the economic barriers to the fine art. By making fine art and "common" art available to anyone, without difficulty, the general population would once again be able to decipher for itself the beauty of art, without being biased or predisposed to what the art is worth, or where it is being showed or displayed.
How would Dewey view the pop culture of our art world today?
Dewey has a skeptical view of the industrialization of art, with good reason. He states that artists are not meant to produce on demand, and that the mechanization of art pushes individualism and other unique traits to the side. However, he does include that this pressure pushes some artists to become more individualistic, which cannot be a bad thing.
"Because of changes in industrial conditions the artist has been pushed to one side form the main streams of active interest. Industry has been mechanized and an artist cannot work mechanically for mass productions...A peculiar esthetic 'individualism' results. Artist find it incumbent upon them to betake themselves to their work as an isolated means of 'self expression'...Consequently artistic products take on to a still greater degree the air of something independent and esoteric" (Dewey, 299).
Dewey makes an interesting point here, that perhaps the industrialization of art causes artists to become so wrapped up in their individuality, that their works can convey less and less meaning to the average viewer. Nevertheless, Dewey frowns upon such mass production; I think he would be somewhat skeptical of the pop culture of art today, especially music. For as many artists that can be heard all over the country, on every radio station, there are genres and composers that apply to a very few select group of people.
"Because of changes in industrial conditions the artist has been pushed to one side form the main streams of active interest. Industry has been mechanized and an artist cannot work mechanically for mass productions...A peculiar esthetic 'individualism' results. Artist find it incumbent upon them to betake themselves to their work as an isolated means of 'self expression'...Consequently artistic products take on to a still greater degree the air of something independent and esoteric" (Dewey, 299).
Dewey makes an interesting point here, that perhaps the industrialization of art causes artists to become so wrapped up in their individuality, that their works can convey less and less meaning to the average viewer. Nevertheless, Dewey frowns upon such mass production; I think he would be somewhat skeptical of the pop culture of art today, especially music. For as many artists that can be heard all over the country, on every radio station, there are genres and composers that apply to a very few select group of people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)