if representative form has value, it is as form, not as representation. The representative element in a work of art may or may not be harmful; always is irrelevant. For, to appreciate a work of art we need bring with us nothing from life, no knowledge of its affairs, no familiarity with its emotions.
—Clive Bell, Art (Oxford U. Press, 1987, p. 25)
[Of course, one might ask, "What choice have we? It's not as though we can set aside all prior experience before we address a work of art."]
2 comments:
"to appreciate a work of art we need bring with us nothing from life"
This is easily the stupidest statement I've ever encountered regarding art and life. Above our bed hangs a print of Picasso's "Blue Nude," 1902. A 10-year-old, having no relevant life to bring to this image, could not "connect" with it; a 25-year-old would connect with it differently than a 60-year-old. This, I think, is self-evident. Clive Bell was more interested in stating an article of aestheticist faith than in making an honest observation about the relationship between art and life. His genuflection to form is the mark of a phony.
I don't disagree with you. But you may be being a little hard on Bell. What if you substitute 'ancillary' for 'irrelevant' in his statement? I could agree that in a representative work, representation itself is a lesser aspect of what will make or break the piece. Form, composition, use of color, etc., all more important.
The second part of his quote I would agree is daft. As my note below the quote says in so many words, his assertion is irrelevant. We can't set aside who we are before apporaching a piece of art. This 'tabula rasa entity' he invents doesn't exist. And if he/she did exist, her/his ignorance of art &/or life (with it emotions) would not be a good starting point.
Post a Comment