A Contested Term: What is Aesthetic?
In this chapter Jerome Stolnitz discusses how aesthetic perception is explained through attitude. Mainly because it is our attitudes that determine how we precive the world. Stolnitz talks about how we only "pay attention" to certain things and not everything as a whole. There are things that we barely precieve and some that we don't precieve at all. All humans are aimed at a goal and they precieve the world according to those goals. He refers to this 'attitude' as a set, that guides our attention in the directions that meet our goals. And the set prepares us to react in a way that will "be most effective for achieving our goals." Stolnitz also talks about how when your attitude toward something is positive, you will "try to sustain the object's existence and continue to preceive it," however when your attitude towards something is negative, you "will try to destroy it or avert attention from it." This I think is very true about humans and their interactions with objects as well as other people. If you've had a negative experience with someone, their name can become associated with the negative experience and every person you meet from then on, you first associate with the negative experience. Stolnitz goes on to say that our perception of things are only linked to that of our purposes, and I don't completely agree. Yes, alot of our perception is based on purposes and goals, however I do believe we can have perceptions that are just perceptions, with no purpose or goal behind it.
Locating the Asethetic
In this chapter Marcia Eaton discusses how critics view art and how people not only critics view's are so very different. She speaks about how people have different views because of their time period or culture that they are in. How people are effected by their surroundings when they view art, and the world. Eaton says she believes something is aesthetically pleasing when it evokes an emotional reaction in the viewer. So if you compare our disscussion last week about Susuki saying drinking and the making of tea is art, Eaton would probably agree, becuase to Susuki he is gaining an emotional experience, he sees the tea as something more than simply tea.
From Truth and Method
Hans-Georg Gagamer also sees the aesthetic experience as a type of pleasure, something that evokes emotions in the viewer. He talks about how the experience is different for every viewer, and I feel like he agrees with Eaton. Art is going to be percieved differently by everyone.
Overall, I found the first reading easy to read and understand, but as I went on got a little confused. Overall I think I understood the readings, and agree somewhat with them. Who is to say what Art really is? Art is so subjective that there is no formal definition or even a general idea of what it is. Every culture has a different idea and every person the same. So to try and label what Art really is, I find to be impossible except for on a personal level. Just like we discussed in class, I could say that a table is a piece of art, but is it really a piece of art? Yes, someone crafted and sketched it out, but it's functional. So, where does the line get drawn between what is considered art and what isn't? And who gets to draw it? Is there no answer? or is it just on personal basis?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment