Sunday, February 26, 2012

via braden: 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 seems to be identifying the realm of aesthetic emotions as a separate, higher plane than the emotions of normal, everyday life. When he says that he feels an aesthetic emotion, it seems to be in the way that someone might say they were "moved" by a painting, because it doesn't connote a specific emotion, just that an emotion was evoked. I don't really think Bell explains his concepts clearly because of the circularity and vague definitions of aesthetic emotions/significant form. He says that people who feel aesthetic emotions are the ones best qualified to judge art, but he does not seem to be able to pin down a specific definition of what the emotion is. This makes sense because he has to acknowledge, at some level, that art is subjective and shifts depending on the person viewing it. I don't know whether or not Bell can be proven wrong, or even if an example can be provided against him. His tastes seem to be heavily informed by his preference for abstract art. As someone who likes to see storyline and reference used within artwork, I can't really appreciate that aesthetic, but he is entitled to his opinion. I don't really like his way of expressing it, though -- his whole argument seems to be based totally on his own opinions and definitions. 
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)