20
© Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosoph y.co.uk

© Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing [email protected]

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

© Michael Lacewing

Expression

Michael [email protected]

.uk

Page 2: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

Basic ideas

• In an artwork, the artist is expressing themselves, esp. emotion, though not always directly– Emotions expressed are not the same

as emotions represented– But what is represented is relevant to

what emotion is expressed

Page 3: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

Jan Steen The Effects of Intemperance (1663-5)

Page 4: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

Bacon, Three Studies for Figures at the Based of a

Crucifixion (c. 1944)

Page 5: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

Emotion and abstraction

• We are emotionally moved in response to art (perhaps in a distinct, ‘aesthetic’ way), even in response to abstract and non-representational art– Including music

• Our understanding of what the artist was trying to express, through looking at cultural context etc., deepens our response to the work

Page 6: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

Duchamp, Fountain (1917)

Page 7: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

Tolstoy’s view

• ‘Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously by means of certain external signs, hands onto others feelings he has lived through, and that others are infected by those feelings and also experience them.’ (What is Art?)

• Art establishes a bond between the psychological states of the artist and audience, and this in turn creates a bond among the audience.

Page 8: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

Refining the theory

• The work of art is irreplaceable: nothing else expresses the emotion it does just as it does.

• The artist needn’t feel the emotion to be aroused in the audience – but they need to be able to imagine it.

• A vision is communicated, not just a feeling. But the communication must be moving.

• Even if we don’t come to share the emotion expressed, to understand the work, we need to see it from the perspective from which it was created.

Page 9: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

David, The Death of Marat (1793)

Page 10: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

Is all art expressive?

• Pleasant music that expresses ‘nothing in particular’– It expresses the composer’s idea of how

pleasant music should sound.

• Two consequences– Expression is not always of emotion; the theory

is widened to refer to intention of the artist– No sharp line between what is art and what is

not – we all make this kind of aesthetic judgment. Art is just more difficult.

Page 11: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

How does art express emotion?

• A painting can’t literally be calm, content, intimate, sad…

• Nor is the emotion expressed the emotions represented (Steen)

• Nor does the work express the artist’s emotion, since that would limit an artist to what she or he actually feels

• Nor is it the same as saying the work evokes that emotion in the audience

Page 12: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

Schedoni’s The Holy Family with the Virgin teaching the Child to Read (c. 1615)

Page 13: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

Audience emotion

• A painting can arouse sadness without expressing sadness– E.g. someone might feel sad looking

at Schedoni because it reminds them that they don’t have an intimate family

– This doesn’t mean the painting is a sad painting - it isn’t

Page 14: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

Intention

• Better: a sad painting is one that the artist intends to evoke sadness in the audience

• A painting is experienced ‘correctly’ when the audience feels or at least understands the emotion the artist intended to arouse

• We value art both for the work of the artist, but also for the imaginative work we must do to recover the meaning

Page 15: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

Picasso The Three Dancers (1925)

Page 16: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

Intention

• ‘Intention’ here is broad, i.e. all psychological states that bring the artist to make the painting just as it is– The artist does not have to be conscious

of their intention– Their intention may evolve with the

artwork• At some point, the artist accepts that

the work is as it should be

Page 17: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

The intentional fallacy

• We cannot refer to the artist’s intention or state of mind in interpreting the artwork– The state of mind is private - we cannot infer

from the artwork– We should concentrate on the artwork, not the

artist’s state of mind

• We can and should value the artwork on the basis of the artwork and its merits alone, not the psychological conditions of its creation

Page 18: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

Reply

• Many psychological descriptions of the artwork refer also to the mind of the artist, e.g. mature, perceptive, pretentious, courageous– To say an artwork is pretentious is not to say that the

artist is a pretentious person, but in this artwork, on this occasion, they have displayed pretention

• The distinction to observe is not between artwork and artist’s mind, but those psychological qualities expressed in the artwork and those qualities of the artist as a person generally.– An artist can be perceptive in their work, but a mess in

their life.

Page 19: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

Rembrandt, Self-portrait at the age of 63 (1669)

Page 20: © Michael Lacewing Expression Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk

Conclusion

• The intentional fallacy is not a fallacy - we can respond to and value art for what the artist expresses through the artwork

• To interpret an artwork may require some understanding of the artist’s life, and the circumstances in which the artwork was created.– However, this should not absolutely limit or

guide interpretation. The only evidence that the artist was, e.g perceptive, could be in their art.