Quote:
Originally Posted by iluvjeisa
What do you mean by the very last bit (in bold)? The emotion of a thing is of the utmost importance in art...
|
Hey iluvjeisa! Thank-you for asking, I'll clarify: When you say 'the emotion of a thing is of the
utmost importance in art' you mean you rank art based on your emotional reaction to it. Yes?
(You experience a song and if it induces a positive emotion you'll favour it above a negative)
If so, we can agree that you were responsible for interpreting the emotional content. No one
else can give it to you, you had to experience it for yourself. This is because art has no
intrinsic emotional value in itself. A cross is but a cross. To a Christian it is comforting, to
a Vampire it is repulsive, to a window it is a frame. It is its experience and nothing more.
Emotion is not inherent in a thing because we can disagree on the emotion attached.
My 'beautiful' may be your 'nothing special' and all of Western Music may be grating noise
to an African tribe. I know it's brief but I hope that's understandable and we can agree.
Although an artist starts with an idea, which by imagined-experience causes an emotional
potentiality, they create using dry materials (the note C is a frequency, paint is emotionless)
which is the essence shaped into form which is substance. When the material is formed in
a creative way it is praised for having substance value. When substance value combines
with a positive emotional experience, you have a masterpiece! That's what I mean.
