Random Post

This image caught my eyes, what do you guys think?

Q&A 5

What, according to Bell, is the relationship between "significant form" and "aesthetic emotion"?

The relationship between significant form and aesthetic emotion is something like explain as lines and colors. But it really something I think special people can experience because they can see details in arts that some people might not see. It does not mean that they are better than anybody, but that is how Bell sees the world. More or less they happen one before the other in order to get the whole experience of experiencing full art. Even for Bell is hard to put in words what really significant form and aesthetic emotion means, so it makes me think if he is not 100 percent sure what really they are anybody can appreciate a good piece of art.

In order to appreciate art how is intended to be we have to experience significant form, so aesthetic emotion get in place for the full art experience. In other words if you do not get significant form there is no way you are going to get to aesthetic emotion according to Bell. From my point of view I feel we do not have to experience anything to appreciate art for what it is. I think what I’m trying to say is that are do not agree with Bell in the sense that in my mind I feel anybody in this world can look at art like any other person.

I know some people might be better at observing art, but in my view that does not mean they are experiencing significant form and aesthetic emotion. Do not get me wrong, but there is something in me that tell me there might be few people who can actually feel significant form and aesthetic emotion. What I completely disagree with Bell is on “Significant Form is the one quality common to all works of visual art” (262). I think is can be part of visual art, but I’m not completely sure how it can be in all visual art? Because if all works of visual art have this quality people who do not have the ability to find significant form in visual art would never get to see the real work of art. 

Q&A 4

 What is the significance of Dewey's claim that "art is...prefigured in the very processes of living"? (p. 303)

I think everything in the world can be art it depends the way we look at the specific object. When Dewey claim that “art is…prefigure in the very processes of living” I feel is because art must be predetermine by nature. If we look at anything in nature there is a pathway or guideline we must have to follow to do anything. For example if you look the idea of “A bird builds its nest and a beaver its dam” (303) that is something predetermine by nature. They know how to those thing because it was prefigured by nature in the sense that they know how to do it before they even seen one before.

I feel if we think about all the art in the world none of those arts were seen before, but it was prefigure into the artist mind. Most of the pieces of art are prefigured ideas imbedded in talented people and those people were predetermined by nature before they even know. Sometimes it’s very hard to explain how can nature determine a pathway of a specific person, but I think all lives are predetermine before we are even born into the world and I feel that is the beauty of life. We have all the tools imbedded in us to succeed in life, but it’s up to us to figure out a way to get those ideas from where they are hiding. It’s easy to say nature has control over us, but if we think about it we make our own destinies we just follow the pathway set by nature.