Does the circularity of Bell’s aesthetic emotion and significant form discredit his point?
Bell's aesthetic emotion, as mentioned in an earlier post, is the emotion received from the lines and colors of a piece of visual art, called significant form. Significant form is based off the emotion received as aesthetic emotion. And the emotion is only seen as peculiar and part of real ecstasy. Neither is really truly defined. Neither are grounded in a solid fact and it brings down the theory. How can Bell expect us to believe that his theory is truth if there can be no explanation of what is happening in the theory. Then he explains that there are people who know art truly and understand and yet he is one of them and does not understand. He discredits himself with his vagueness.
No comments:
Post a Comment