Clive Bell was a well known art critic from the 1920s. He created criteria that he would judge art with, which became a large influence within in the art community. Bell’s argument is based upon essentialism, as he states that “there is a unique emotion for aesthetics, [and] what arouses this emotion is certain ‘forms and relations of forms’ (including line and color), which Bell called ‘significant form’”. As such, Bell differentiates between an emotional response and a response specific to the structure of the art itself. The significant form is thusly the only way that we can critique art, according to Bell. However, Clive Bell’s criteria does not end here. He states that even though one may consider the existence of significant form in …show more content…
Some philosophers have argued that while a painting of a sunset counts as an artistic work, the sunset itself is not. Vasari defined art as an imitation of natural things. If this definition is followed, then it can be said that a painting, being an imitation of nature, counts as art. The sunset, however, is a product of nature, and therefore is not art. Moreover, in “The Essence of Art”, Roger Bissell makes the assertion that both of the largest theories of art find it to be man-made. As such, a painting of a sunset is a man-made object, and a sunset is not. This would make the painting art. A final theory on why the painting is art comes from the theory that art must have a medium. It has been said that “every work of art occurs in a medium; that is, there is some physical object or series of events by which the work is communicated to the recipient”. As such, a painting occurs within the medium of paint; a sunset, on the other hand, does not have a medium, and cannot then be considered as art. To summarise, the example of a sunset versus a painting of the sunset can be described through the imitation theory, the man-made aspect of art, and the need for art to have a
ABSTRACT: British Avant-Garde art, poses a challenge to traditional aesthetic analysis. This paper will argue that such art is best understood in terms of Wittgenstein¡¦s concept of "seeing-as," and will point out that the artists often use this concept in describing their work. This is significant in that if we are to understand art in terms of cultural practice, then we must actually look at the practice. We will discuss initiatives such as the work of Damien Hirst, most famous for his animals in formaldehyde series, and that of Simon Patterson, who warps diagrams, e.g., replacing the names of stops on London Underground maps with those of philosophers. Cornelia Parker¡¦s idea that visual appeal is not the most important thing, but rather that the questions that are set up in an attempt to create an "almost invisible" art are what are central, will also be discussed. Also, if we concur with Danto¡¦s claims that "contemporary art no longer allows itself to be represented by master narratives," that Nothing is ruled out.", then it is indeed fruitful to understand art in terms of seeing-as. For application of this concept to art explains what occurs conceptually when the viewer shifts from identifying a work, as an art object, and then as not an art object, and explains why nothing is ruled out.
Art can mean many different things to many different people and was one of the earliest ways in which man has expressed him or herself to others, whether it was through cave drawings or hieroglyphics. It does not begin or end with just drawing or painting, items typically considered art, or the many other recognized facets of art including architecture, drama, literature, sculpting, and music. My research is based on Vincent van Gogh art, and two art paintings that I choose to study is The Starry Night, 1889, and the second art is The Sower 1888. Vincent van Gogh’s is known for Impressionism, that occurs to us in these times, much more to affirm close links with tradition, and to represent
Though criticism has taken on a negative connotation in the English language, and artists can fear or reject it, criticism is not inherently bad. In fact, both Wharton and Carrol claim that positive and negative (constructive) criticisms are beneficial to the artist and their audience. According to Wharton, artists use professional criticism to see how others may perceive their work. By obtaining that secondary viewpoint, the artist can use the critic’s educated analysis to improve a specific work or their art in general (Wharton, 42). In addition, a critic’s interpretation of a work of art is perfect for determining how off-centered their intended outcome for the work is, and what to refine in order to convey their message clearer in the next iteration or masterpiece. Regarding the audience, Carrol supports by asserting that, “The common reader expects guidance from the critic concerning what is worthy in an artwork” (Carrol 14). As oftentimes the audien...
Critical thinking is a very important aspect to understanding art. As David Perkins put it in “The Intelligent Eye”, we must avoid “experimental thinking”, a rash, quick way of thinking based on observations and use “reflective intelligence”, a way of thinking in which a viewer takes their time and dissects details and nuances to fully understand a work of art. A majority of viewers will look at a piece of art and come to a quick analysis of it, without much thought. But, according to Perkins, “The more attentive the observation is, the better the opportunity is for deeper learning” (Perkins 14). As Banksy said in Exit Through the Gift Shop, “the reaction to the work of art is the most important thing about it.” Without a reaction or an opinion, the work of art has no meaning. Therefore, in order to trul...
Though most works of art have some underlying, deeper meaning attached to them, our first impression of their significance comes through our initial visual interpretation. When we first view a painting or a statue or other piece of art, we notice first the visual details – its size, its medium, its color, and its condition, for example – before we begin to ponder its greater significance. Indeed, these visual clues are just as important as any other interpretation or meaning of a work, for they allow us to understand just what that deeper meaning is. The expression on a statue’s face tells us the emotion and message that the artist is trying to convey. Its color, too, can provide clues: darker or lighter colors can play a role in how we judge a piece of art. The type of lines used in a piece can send different messages. A sculpture, for example, may have been carved with hard, rough lines or it may have been carved with smoother, more flowing lines that portray a kind of gentleness.
The attempt to set up a standard for assessing the merit of works of art, based upon contingent connections between these works and the sentiments (feelings of pleasure or displeasure) of spectators, was famously made by David Hume. His attempt remains the locus classicus for those philosophers who attempt to found the aesthetic judgment upon empirical, rather than a priori, grounds. I have myself given it a limited defense (1). Recently, Hume's argument has been severely attacked by Malcolm Budd (2). His central contention is that Hume completely fails to introduce any normative element into the aesthetic judgment; he fails, that is, to give any content to the claim that some judgments on the value of a work are more warranted or appropriate than others...
From the creation of art to its modern understanding, artists have strived to perform and perfect a photo realistic painting with the use of complex lines, blend of colors, and captivating subjects. This is not the case anymore due to the invention of the camera in 1827, since it will always be the ultimate form of realism. Due to this, artists had the opportunities to branch away from the classical formation of realism, and venture into new forms such as what is known today as modern art. In the examination of two well known artists, Pablo Picasso and Jackson Pollock, we can see that the artist doesn’t only intend for the painting to be just a painting, but more of a form of telling a scene through challenging thoughts, and expressing of the artists emotion in their creation.
According to Webster’s Dictionary, art is “human expression of objects by painting, etc” (10). The words “human experience” adds meaning to art. Artists reveal their inner thoughts and feelings through their work. When we study a painting by Salvador Dali, the strange objects and the surrealist background portrays the eccentricity of the painter. Some ideas cannot be explained verbally. They can only be shown via a medium. We can get across what is in our minds or our hearts by a stroke of a brush, a drop of paint, a row of words, or something else. But to express ourselves, we do not need to limit what we call art.
Just as other works that reflect art, pieces in the category of fine arts serve the important message of passing certain messages or portraying a special feeling towards a particular person, function or activity. At times due to the nature of a particular work, it can become so valuable that its viewers cannot place a price on it. It is not the nature or texture of an art that qualifies it, but the appreciation by those who look at it (Lewis & Lewis, 2008).
Among the many theories of art that have emerged over time, the theory I will defend in this paper is the Neo-Wittgensteinian theory of Art. I will defend this view against the following (two) objections: a) The “open concept” idea of art is too expansive, and b) the “family resemblance” theory of artworks is also too expansive.
Clive Bell theorizes art in terms of a theory known as Formalism. Formalism is based upon a relatively simple line of logic. All art produces in the viewer an emotion. This emotion is not different but the same for all people in that it is known as the Aesthetic Emotion. There must be a factor common to all works of art that produces in the viewer a state of Aesthetic Emotion thus defining the works as art. This common factor is form. Formalism defines artworks as that which has significant form. Significant form is a term used by Bell to describe forms that are arranged by some unknown and mysterious laws. Thus, all art must contain not merely form, but significant form. Under Formalism, art is appreciated not for its expression but instead for the forms of its components. Examples of these forms include lines, curves, shapes, and colors. Abstract art, twentieth century, or modern art such as color field painting or the works of Mondrian, are examples of art that are not representative and thus are most lik...
Additionally, in order for someone to aesthetically judge a piece of work, “one must preserve complete indifference in this respect, in order to play the part of judge in matters of taste” (Kant 27). Thus, without knowing the concept of this work, one would not be able to find “aesthetical beauty” in few smudges. In order for a work to be judged as beautiful it must “, apart from a concept, pleases universally” (Kant 15) and should be “cognized as object of a necessary delight” (Kant 26). Bell also puts emphasis on criteria of “significant form” that consists of “lines and colors combined in a particular way, certain forms and relations of forms, stir [viewer’s] aesthetic emotions” (Bell 8) which can not be found in “Erased de
If we were to ask a critic to critique a work of art, we would expect them to actually remember the contents of the work. Would we be satisfied with a critique that did not mention what the art was depicting, only detailing the quality of lines and ranges of color? I, personally, would expect one who sees true art in a visual to be able to depict the image the art is conveying and be able to interpret these images. When hearing others describe art in great detail, yes, it is expected that they recognize the form and function of the piece, but rarely do they completely disregard the main idea the visual is meant to communicate. This, again, is where Bell is false. I feel you cannot declare a piece of work art if you are only looking at the small details rather than the visual as a
(756) He explains that modernism takes elements of art and focuses on those elements, one of the most important being emotional or specific experience ( ). Every piece of art produces a different emotion and this emotion is called the aesthetic emotion. Bell continues by stating that he is not interested in the quality of the art piece but the emotions that come from it ( ). If art is not a constant source of passionate emotion, than it has no reason for being.
Aesthetics is the theoretical study of the arts and related types of behavior and experience. It is traditionally regarded as a branch of philosophy, concerned with the understanding of beauty and its manifestations in art and nature. However, in the latter 20th century there developed a tendency to treat it as an independent science, concerned with investigating the phenomena of art and its place in human life. Yet, what in a field with a hazy line in between being classified as a science or study of beliefs is considered data for determining what can be studied? It can simply be drawn to the only three things involved in the process of art : The creator, the person experiencing, and the art itself.