VC
Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy, at least as old as Plato, that studies beauty and taste, including their specific manifestations in the tragic, the comic, and the sublime. Its central issues include questions about the origin and status of aesthetic judgments: are they objective statements about genuine features of the world or purely subjective expressions of personal attitudes; should they include any reference to the intentions of artists or the reactions of patrons; and how are they related to judgments of moral value? More specifically, aesthetics considers each of these issues as they arise for various arts, including art, architecture, painting, sculpture, music, dance, theatre, and literature. Aesthetics is a significant component of the philosophical work of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Santayana.
Of course art appreciation is in the eyes of the beholder, although there are certain elements that we can define across a group of paintings, for example, that can be generalized or delineated, and hence discussed and analyzed on their own merits.
Generally, visual art adheres to the aesthetic principles of symmetry/asymmetry, focal point, pattern, contrast, perspective, 3D dimensionality, movement, rhythm, unity/Gestalt, and proportion.
You can't simply, I agree, take a sample of artwork, lay it down, critique it across aesthetic dimensions, and reach some kind of quantitative judgement as to its quality. Great paintings touch our souls; they may violate some guidelines, which I pointed out before, or lend different weights to various aesthetic principles (sometimes a piece of art veers violently from an aesthetic principle specifically for effect; the "anti-art" Dadaist movement deliberately violated as many artistic principles as possible). Yet the principle of aesthetics gives us a basis for discussion and final judgement.
While this concensus that aesthetics gives a basis for the discussions is essential, the fact that judgements related solely to personal affective responses can be claimed as the 'all' is a fault! In the appeal to the greatest number, through personal responses and aesthetic considerations, there is the appellation of 'great Art'. I do not have to like Picasso, to recognise the qualities of his artistic skills, etc.
Some as yourself seem to believe that personal affective response is the arbiter... in fact it can never be....this would mean as it does in much critical wriitng today that anybody's artistic judgement is as good as another's. It isn't, if you don't make aesthetics part of your judgements.
The fact is that stirring the human soul seems to follow aesthetic criteria appreciated from the days of ancient Greece to today- that taste is pre-eminent over personal preference.
ART is primarily skill in the medium... be it paint or music, or architecture,or literature,etc.
You seem to have ignored in your response to my last something I emphasised... that it has to be appreciated that my personal preferences can tell me I do not like this picture or that, this sculpture or that... and that has no bearing on judgements about whether the picture or sculpture is good or bad art.
I can perfectly well LIKE bad art, and LOATHE good art. recognising the worth of the work is very important.
You sound the sort of person who will accept anything so long as you personally find it artistically satisfying.... WELL... that is fine, BUT you have to recognise that what you regard as satisfying, etc., actually can be shown to follow or not follow aesthetic principles that unify views of M. Angelo's work and Picasso's.
As I have written above:
"Great paintings touch our souls; they may violate some guidelines," etc.
How does a particular work 'stir your soul', VC? How does it follow the aesthetic principles of symmetry/asymmetry, focal point, pattern, contrast, perspective, 3D dimensionality, movement, rhythm, unity/Gestalt, and proportion.
Are you going to simply ignore such concerns and be simply happy disliking a particular work of Vettriani, or do you unkindly lump them, all his works together as 'tosh'?
You see, I am not discusssing whether or not you LIKE Vettriani's work, or if I like it... we are looking for other concerns too... the skill and artistry in the performance, and the fact that some of his works satisfy and 'stir' something in people's souls.
As to your views of WW, again you seem to think he is somehow beyond criticism... the fact is that many of his more maudling pieces were found to be rather boring by audiences then and are now, being squarely placed in an hyperaesthesia of the senses, that is not very rational to say the least, but glorifies the irrational.
In itself, believing one hear rocks and stones and trees is harmless... but to build upon that with poetic declarations that are religious in nature is proof of the irrationality of the 'message' in any world beyond the poetic. The audience,quite deliberately is invited to share in the vision... which again, is fine! But.... does CONTENT, FORM, etc., literary aesthetics never play a part in your judgements?
Finally,the quote you offer Dominique proves my point:
"and I have felt a sense sublime of something far more deeply interfused... whose dwelling is the light of setting suns and the round ocean and the living air and in the mind of man... a motion and a spirit that impells all thinking things, all objects of all thought and rolls through all things"...
There is no 'spirit' that impels... if there is, pleasegive the evidence.
These are the irrational and poetic ramblings I refer to. They are beautifully expressed, but ultimately represent a mystical and metaphysical view of the real world that is just not so.
The quote shows simply how WW reacted affectively through his affective nature and nurture... for us to enjoy, ponder on --- AND approach critically with reason.
Mystics and those of religiosity often claim a 'sense of the sublime'. BUT, so what? That can be achieved via LSD and other hallucinogenics - even alcohol, or even self flagellation. It is actually an affective state of an individual. It has no meaning in reality beyond self. It does not relate to the domain beyond self, the material and cognitive domain, except through 'declaration' and 'affirmation'. Accepted in these terms, we either see this as 'soul stirring' or we do not... and that has nothing to do with aesthetic judgements that should be applied to the poem, painting, piece of music or whatever.
A viewing of a baby in a pram can stir one's soul. So? A trip through the Alps can do the same.
He says the sense of the sublime IS in the light of setting suns... but it isn't. It is only in the affective nature of a supremely sensitive man with hyperaesthesia, gifted with skills, the facility for, language, and he attempts to convey his affective vision to us... and I will leave you to decide for what purpose or reason.
Remember M.Angelo worked on commissions - for money! Also read some of the letters, conversations between WW and Coleridge, and Dorothy'sconcerns..
