I am really displeased with Thomas E. Wartenberg's decision to include Clive Bell's theory of art in The Nature of Art. I feel this because First of all, Clive Bell starts out by insulting his readers. His tone is one of arrogance and superiority, making your reader feel like a simpleton is not a good way to begin your defense of your theory. Besides that,my class and I discovered that Bell's theory is very flawed. His theory is flawed for two very big reasons. The first reason is that he can not explain what he means when he says a piece of artwork has to evoke "aesthetic emotion". Bell claims that it is not of this world and only some people can feel that way. The second major flaw of this theory is that when taken to the literal sense, the audience ends up looking at nothing. The significant form of anything, according to Bell is to break it down to it's most abstract form. However, If you continue to do that, you will end up with a blank canvas and that to me doesn't seem to be art.
1. Does beauty play an important role in judging art?
2.What would dance look like if we used Clive Bell's theory?
No comments:
Post a Comment