I do not think that Walton’s pretend theory is pejorative to artists because it is reasonable that when a person views a work of art and experiences an emotion, he or she is only experiencing a quasi-emotion granted that it is only something that evokes the emotion by being relatable rather than actually arousing the emotion by its own merits. If an artist is not capable of generating the intended emotion in the observer it does not make viewers disapprove of art in general because only a select handful of art works are unable to do so. If all art was unable to generate emotions in onlookers, it would be understandable to argue that disapproval should be made contingent on the concept of art functioning to elicit emotions, but art is still able to hold other functions apart from conveying a particular emotion or emotions. When a work of art does not generate the intended emotion it usually does not do so in all viewers, but rather some are able to grasp the emotions while others are not. Do you think there is a work of art which is incapable of being understood by everyone? Do you think that if this work of art which people do not understand was interpreted in a different way by the majority of the population it would still be considered successful art because it was able to convey an emotion strongly, just not the correct emotion?
No comments:
Post a Comment