Significant form and aeshtetic experiences in Bells view

Bell to me seems to be one that has a strong preference towards abstract art, his theory on aesthetic experiences and significant form strongly support this assumption. He explains that an aesthetic experience is caused by ones response to the forms and relations of forms within a piece of art. Significant form on the other hand is what evokes the emotional response to the forms and relations of forms. So therefore one can view significant form as what evokes a certain response and aesthetic experience as the response itself. Bell’s theory in my opinion is an attempt to be highly selective of what art is truly “good” art and what is seen to be “bad” art, in some way I think it strongly has to do with his preferences. His whole view is based around the fact that the aesthetic value of a painting has nothing to do with its actual success as a piece of art to represent something else, like a landscape or what not. But after reading this chapter I began to realize that his views are very narrow, leaving really little room to truly say with great certainty what is or is not good art, bad art, or art in general for that matter.

Bell's views

When first reading Clive Bells view on what art truly is, I was completely and utterly confused. Not to sound cliché but it was the truth. I could not grasp the concept of that he was trying to portray. But through further reading I was able to understand his concepts and make critics on why I believed his theory could not define art. In my opinion when an artist has a preference, (in this case a strong preference) towards a certain genre of art they tend to be more likely to form their theories in relation to those preferences, therefore creating a theory that will defend this art form and leaving out many others. In my opinion Bell’s theory has a very biased nature, I do not truly know if this is done on purpose or maybe out of pure instinct to defend a genre of art he loves, but in any case his theories have only shown me a way to defend abstract art, not a way to define art as a whole.

Art throughout periods of time, Freud

Through further class discussions of Freud's views, I began to separate the previous ideas I had about Freud and began to really look behind his strange views, (well, strange in my opinion). The concept of time and phantasies began to take on a new light. The idea that phantasies are threaded through three periods of time started to make a lot more sense. He explains this threading throughout time as; one has an impression that is brought about by an event that creates an inner desire. This causes us to remember a period in our life (usually in infancy) in which this desire was fulfilled. This creates a situation in the future that represents when the dream may be fulfilled-this is seen as day dreams or phantasies. Although I am not one to agree with many of Freud's views, the threading through time seems to have good underlying qualities. For example the idea that the idea of a desire being present at all three periods in time seems very probable. This ideal could be applied to other example outside the realm of art, and in some cases if not all it would seem very likely. I may not be a fan of Freud's views, but I do believe he is brilliant within his own element.

Freud and "Phantasies"

Being a psychology major, one learns about Freud and his views towards the human mind as well as his views on why people choose to act the way they do. Although Freud is said to be controversial due to his unusual views, and his choice of extracurricular activities (his usage of opium), his ways of viewing the world have stood the test of time. While reading Freud's take on what art truly is, he said something that caught my eye. " We can begin by saying that happy people never make phantasies, only the unsatisfied ones." He goes on to say the unsatisfied wishes are what drive people to create these "phantasies". So therefore if someone phantasies does that mean one is not satisfied in their life? Also do these unfulfilled wishes drive us to create art? Truthfully I do not believe that if one phantasies they are unsatisfied, I believe that they become things we wish to have, things that motivate us to work towards completing them. I do believe there is some truth in the sense that our inner desires may fuel us to create art. Without inner desire to express a certain emotion or feeling, there would be no art, therefore who's to say an inner desire can't motivate someone to create a piece of art.

Tolstoy and Beauty

"All the aesthetic definitions of beauty come down to two fundemental views: one, that beauty is something existing in itself, a manifestation of the absolutley perfect-idea, spirit, will, God; the other, that beauty is a certain pleasure we experience, which does not have personal advantage as its aim. " This quote is said by Tolstoy at the being of his section where he begins to try to define art. Throughout my reading I found myself returning to this particular quote and wondering if many people view beauty within art in one of those two ways. Then I began to wonder if It is possible to define beauty within art in one of those two ways. I came to the conclusion that it is possible to view beauty in art as mystical or as something one experiences and gets some sort of pleasure from it. For example one may see a work of art and say it is beautiful but not recieve pleasure from viewing that particular piece, while someone else may look at the same work of art and experience pleasure from it but not view it in a mystical way. I think it really all comes down to how each individual views art, and how they interpret it.