value of art pt3

not -poet is in love/ he loves a lot

but- poet's love is noble, selfless..

art from moment of creativity? hows emotion transferred to object to recipient.

there is initial expression of artist results in creation of art -catalyst for feelings +emotions of listener/ viewer.

-want both: individual finds meaning + artist conveying it

emotion is irrational-emotional expression could be anti-rational, dangerous. esp. plato, should be controlled.

German romantics -responded with suicide to emotional trauma. -not expression good.

artist given special status

expressive theory fails to value skill. more focus on artist, lifestyle, look e.g. James Dean, increased fame with death. Art not appreciated itself.

modern art -only criteria: expression, regardless of others' views. e.g. conceptual art- Damien Hirst.

expressing emotions vital. kissing +shouting better expressions? more direct.

art provides paradigms of feelings- about quality of emotions

difference between expressing feeling in outburst + art :channeling

art conveys something beyond description. -why so valuable. just expression is trivial. art should take us beyond what we can understand, relate to -why so valuable

the universality of expression

shakespeare -Romeo&J. western notions romantic love. Muslim fundamentalist see as wrong. -can' be appreciated universally.

positive twist: audience doesn't have to fully understand (culture) to appreciate.

not always -ancient Greek comedy now seen crude, humour changes.

* Form- underlying element of art, arranged by artist to produce most aesthetic effects

*Aesthetic appreciation= particular way of appreciating formal element in art. many argue diff. from intellectual/emotional approach. e.g. stance of statue presents 'wholeness', balanced posture etc

Variation in formal aspects

each particular art has own unique formal aspects

'despite the diversity of what counts as 'formal', there is one thing which all these example have in common in every case relationships between features are involved' -Sheppard

form necessary not sufficient to be art. e.g. haute cuisine -crafts don't meet standard of universality +the formal in crafts can't be sole criteria. its use is more important

only art is formal is ever-present, sustained importance. other things can be emotionally intellectually engaging e.g. conversations, newspaper articles..

not all art conveys emotion, engages intellectually, form is in all art.

some art has form only. be art can't just be cognitive/ affective e.g. crying girl, council brochere isn't art

:) form separates context of work e.g. social, authors political views +focus purely on art itself. e.g. Richard Wagner -unlikeable, amazing operas 'unending melody'

crits often just see valuable themes esp. in books

characteristic states of mind(for aesthetic experience e.g. disinterestedness, concern for universality), attitudes -Kant fits with form theory. e.g. neoclassical building by lake -needs elegant proportions, harmonious nature

does is exist? just philosophical abstraction or skill? like preferring talented footballers.

are there formal qualities that apply to all arts?

each art form -own distinct method. 'ordering' formal features enough. one art form's elements little relation to another.

form doesn't identify feature applies all art..but, necessary?