(development)

Compare and contrast the claims that good art portrays authentically and that it expresses a vision.

The argument that good art portrays authentically is based on an artist's aim to represent reality in the most accurate way possible - it is believed that human beings have a drive to represent the world and a desire to see these representations, thus making it the reason why we value art.

Another theory of why we value about art doesn't depend on the artist's accuracy in their representation of reality, but how the art represents something about reality, if it conveys some kind of 'knowledge' or 'truth'. For example, Picasso's 'Guernica' shows us the horror/brutality of war, thus the audience comes away with this message of the artist's vision.

The link between the two is that representation is relevant/important, however, the latter view states that the accuracy of the representation isn't why we value art, but rather the way the artist uses representation to convey their vision and to express a deeper sense of reality is what makes us value art.

Explain and illustrate the view that good art reveals truths.

Firstly, a particular way that art may express 'truth' is through paying attention to the ordinary - artist's can show how unique and individual objects that we may take for granted are. For example, Van Gogh's 'Chair' is a painting of an everyday object, but which expresses that everything is precisely itself and nothing else, and is to be value for its unique existence.

Furthermore, another example where art may express truth is in novels - a good novel portray's different points of views of different characters, which may help the reader understand how others think and feel, for example, portraying something in a sympathetic light may help the reader understand the world in a different way, thus contributing to the readers self-understanding. Also, a novel may describe universal human experience, for example, growing up, which may also help readers understand themselves.

Lastly, art can reveal truths through portraying idealisations, for example, Palma Vecchio's 'A Blonde Woman' is an expression of the ideal of woman, or of the ideal of 'woman' (as he imagines it); many renaissance artist's tried to represent what is ideal. In focusing on idealisation in art, it can tell us about the object idealised as well as about ourselves and human judgement.

Assess the claim that we value art because it informs us.

Firstly, it could be argued that we do not value art because it informs us because not all art expresses a vision/'truth' - for example, music does not tend to express a vision, but simply expresses emotion. Art that's made just to be enjoyed, for example, pleasant, entertaining music and artefacts (such as rugs and vases) does not express anything, therefore going against the view that we value art because it informs us.

Secondly, it could be argued that focusing just on how we are informed when it comes to art is too intellectual; if this were the case then art would always need to be analysed to be valued or appreciated, but it is obvious that we can simply look at a painting a feel an emotional reaction without having to analyse it. However, it could also be argued that the artist's vision is also valuable for its expressive, emotional qualities, not just the 'truth' it reveals.

Furthermore, most of the time the vision an artist is trying to convey is simply there to be contemplated and enjoyed - there isn't always a message to be taken away from a piece of art, therefore the point of art isn't always to inform us about anything at all.

Lastly, a focus on the information an artist is trying to convey to us isn't what is unique about art - a theological essay can express a religious view, but this doesn't make it art and isn't valued as art. Therefore, rather than being about information, it is the expressive qualities (how the vision is expressed and the emotional qualities of the vision) that we value in art, furthermore, the vision must move us, and it is being moved that contributes to our placing value on art.


Outline the idea of 'free play' of imagination and understanding.

Kant's theory of sense experience states that experiences needs to organised by concepts to be intelligible (otherwise experience would remain a meaningless, confused 'buzz'). He believed that our most basic concepts, known as 'categories', enable us to experience objects. He called the production and application of concepts the 'understanding', and the organisation of stimuli the 'imagination'. In normal perception, the 'understanding' dominates, therefore the organisation of stimuli are constrained by the concepts we apply (for example, walking through a forest: we see trees, then their branches moving gently in the wind). However, if we free imagination up from applying the concept of 'tree', we can see the tree as a person, with its branches as arms, thus giving the imagination a degree of 'free play' (though still guided by the shapes of the trees).

Kant argues that something like this happens in aesthetic response - because he said that we are 'disinterested' in art, we can ignore the question of what something 'really' is i.e. there's no need to constrain our experience by particular concepts. Thus, 'imagination' has free play in how it organises what we see, and our 'understanding' has free play in creating new concepts. He argued that good art enables this ability - it stimulates us to free our imagination and understanding, and to therefore simply enjoy making representations.


Explain Kant's account of the relation between form and aesthetic pleasure.

Kant believed that our response to form (the relation between non-aesthetic features) of an art-piece is what enables us to gain aesthetic pleasure - seeing the beauty of an artwork can't be produced simply from the 'matter' of representations (in vision, colours, in hearing, sounds). For example, colours on their own in a sketch add to part of the 'charm', but they aren't what makes the sketch beautiful, or really worth looking at.

It could be argued that this view of why we value art has the upper-hand over expressionism, as it justifies aesthetic judgements as objective - it manages to draw on disinterested nature of the aesthetic attitude and structure of the mind. In being objective, it claims that objective judgements rely on nothing in particular in the self (no experience or interest is necessary). Thus, Kant claims that everyone who responds to art in the right way (disinterested and noticing form) should make the same aesthetic judgement.


Explain Bell's theory of significant form.

Bell went beyond Kant's idea of form, as he believed that everything has some form or other, therefore the term isn't separated for cases in art; he believed the term 'significant form' to be more appropriate. He believed that only art could have significant form (thus differentiating it), also specifically that good art must have significant form. He argued that representation is irrelevant in art, except for representation of three-dimensional space, otherwise no knowledge of life or emotions are needed.

The theory of significant form states that a person can only know significant form through 'aesthetic emotion' - Bell believed that at artist looks at the world with no concern for association or function of things, and that they are only interested in the pure form of things (thus, they see the world as it really is); this produces an emotion in the artist of which is expressed through significant form of their artwork. The viewers of this art can then experience aesthetic emotion through the expression of the artist's emotion.

It is argued that Bell's theory is very similar to expressionism, however, Bell argued that we should not look for expression or emotion in art, but should focus on significant form; only then will aesthetic emotion be felt.