Descriptive Paintings

Bell describes a descriptive painting as a “…painting in which forms are used not as objects of emotion, but as means of suggesting emotion or conveying information,” (page 264). An example of a descriptive painting would be a topographical work such as a map of a particular area. Most maps are designed as a tool for individuals curious about the area to use for guidance. According to Bell’s theory of which objects should fall under the category of art, maps would not qualify because they do not arouse an aesthetic emotion. It is possible to a map to do so though. For example, what if a parent drew a map of the town he or she was living in to help educate his or her child about the surrounding area. Here, the only intent of the map is to convey information which is the definition of a descriptive painting. If the parent chooses to get creative with the map drawing in hopes of making the learning process more fun for the child he or she may add in some drawings to represent certain areas. For example, the parent could draw a fish to represent a lake or he or she may drawn a house to represent his or her home. If the child sees this map and the images on the map arouse an aesthetic emotion, it should be considered art in Bell’s point of view. Would this scenario imply that some descriptive paintings can be considered art as well or should intention play a role in its categorization?

In Response to Katie's Question

It is often the case that a person experiences something they consider to be extremely beautiful or awe-inspiring in nature to the point in which he or she wishes to capture the moment’s beauty in nature in some manner. People choose to capture nature’s beauty in different ways depending on the unique characteristics of the individual. A photographer may want to take a photograph, while a painter may choose to paint the image, or a sculptor may choose to create a sculpture. When the desire sets in to capture nature’s beauty in more than just a memory, people tend to take pictures. Cameras, despite all of their technological improvements over the years, can only capture so much in a photograph. Personally, I have had an experience where I attempted to make a duplicate through photography of the night sky one night where the moon happened to be extremely visible and beautiful, but the camera was not able to capture the light, shadows, and colors the way that was so clearly seen in person. Due to this inability to capture nature in an artistic way that is an exact replica of the natural seen, humans have developed a different type of appreciation for nature in comparison to art objects attempting to depict it. Do people place more value on photography of nature because it is a truer representation of the original or does the opposite hold true where individuals place more value on a drawing, painting, or sculpture because it is more difficult to create?

In Response to Jacob's Second Question (Week 5)

Bell’s formalism does seem to suggest that we ought to divorce ourselves from content during appreciation. From Bell’s perspective, the main reason that individuals find an appeal to an art piece is because of its significant form (the placement of lines and colors). Significant form does not relate to the specific content in the artwork, but rather focuses on the parts which make up the whole instead of the whole itself. By divorcing oneself from the content, the viewer may be able to gather a greater insight as to how the work was created by seeing things such as the individual brush strokes created by a painter. It is not possible to completely divorce oneself from all content in an art work. Although one can make a serious effort to disregard the content of the art piece and focus solely on its significant form, after viewing the art piece for the first time the individual is already aware of what the work is intended to be (i.e. a waterfall). Trying to appreciate the work based solely off of its significant form after already knowing what the work is intended to represent would be extremely difficult because it would always be present in the viewer’s mind, even if only on a subconscious level. Formalists are not “correct” to deny content, but their denial of content does not make their theories less valid. Would you consider a person to be already divorced from content if the content of the artwork is unclear (i.e. the image we looked at in class that was simply lines and other unidentified shapes overlapping)?

In Response to Jacob's First Question (Week 5)

I do not think that Bell is an elitist because although he made strong implications that those who are more knowledgeable about aesthetics (the process of creating it, intended meanings and emotions from the artist, history, etc.) are able to make more accurate judgments about the value of the work, he also makes implications that any individual who is interested enough in the subject is able to reach this level of superiority in reference to aesthetic judgment simply through the processes of taking the time to increase his or her knowledge in this specific topic. Elitism can be a great fault in a theory especially in theories having to do with something so subjective such aesthetics because the concept of subjectivity revolves around the idea that the object at hand is going to hold a different meaning and value to every viewer. Two individuals could be highly educated of an art piece in the same manner but still have two distinctly different views on the work despite their expertise. With this concept in mind, I do not think that an aesthetic theory can be both elitist and correct simply due to the variability in opinions that most works of art produce (although this may not hold true to theories on other topics). A theory may become viciously elitist when it begins to dismiss other points of view or theories as less important due to the assumed lack of correct knowledge expressed by another. What are some topics or theories where elitism would be beneficial?