Outline and illustrate the view that art expresses emotion.
Representationalism and formalism is flawed as it fails to acknowledge the psychological dimension of art i.e. that it expresses emotion - firstly, it is argued that even in the most abstract of works the artist is trying express themselves, particularly their emotions (not always directly, but in some way). For example, Piet Mondrian's 'Composition C (No. III)' in which he claimed he was trying to express the spiritual sublime - thus supporting the view that art expresses emotion.
Secondly, we, as an audience, are emotionally moved in response to art - just as art can express a number of different feelings, so it can evoke different feelings. It could be said, then, that there is a special aesthetic way of experiencing emotions; one that takes into account the 'disinterested' nature of aesthetic response (as Kant argued), e.g. maybe we feel them 'in imagination'. For instance, Wordsworth described poetry as 'emotion recollected in tranquility'.
A strength of this theory, firstly, is that it is more accurate that pieces of art express emotion, rather than represent emotion - emotions can be represented, but there is a difference between the emotion being represented in a painting and the emotion expressed by a painting. For example, Jan Steen's 'The Effects of Intemperance' - the scene shows drunken merriment, but the painting as a whole is more of a warning to the negative effects of over-consumption of alcohol. Thus, we are interested in the emotions expressed by the work as a whole when valuing art. [AO2/3]
However, representation isn't irrelevant - there is a close connection between what is represented, how it is represented and the feelings that are being expressed. Grunewald's 'The Crucifixion' expresses horror and pathos with his combination of the tortured body of Christ and his use of colour (sickly greens and yellows). Therefore, what is being represented still contributes to what a piece is trying to express, making it an important element.
Furthermore, non-representational art can equally express or evoke feelings, for example, through its form. For example, in music, we find rhymes, pace and key give us emotional responses - a piece of music with a fast, lively pace in a major key can evoke optimism and joy, whereas a piece with a slow pace in a minor key can evoke sadness. In Mark Rothko's 'Red on Maroon' his use of form can also evoke emotional responses; the sharp edges, the lack of saturation, the smears in the red can feel unsettling, yet noticing how the red rectangle sinks gently into the darker background can feel comforting. Therefore, even non-representational pieces of art can express feelings, thus supporting the overall view.
Our understanding of what an artist is expressing can be increased, also, by looking at the context in which the work was created - (the artists personal life, the tradition that they worked in, the broader cultural context etc). We can deepen our responses to art by trying to see a piece as the audience at the time it was created would.
Leo Tolstoy defended a version of this theory of why we value art: he believed that art connects the audience to the artist through the artists use of expression '[the artist] hands onto other feelings he has lived through, and that others are infected by these feelings and also experience them'; the audience is captivated by the emotions the artist is expressing and so experiences the emotions themselves. Therefore, he believed, that art is valued because it connects humans together and creates bonds with each other on a psychological level. Furthermore, it could be said that a bond is also created between people in the audience as well as they are sharing the same psychological state, thus explaining what we value about art.
No comments:
Post a Comment