While we await Kate's investigation of 'sentimentality' in the 18th Century -- we might observe that Aristotle mentioned no such fault in either tragedy or epic poetry.
"there are five sources from which critical objections are drawn. Things are censured either as impossible, or irrational, or morally hurtful, or contradictory, or contrary to artistic correctness." Indeed, Aristotle repeatedly pointed to "pity and fear" as the proper responses to be aroused -- and what is more sentimental than pity ? 'Sentimentality' is not a problem for Aristotle -- but he is concerned with just who is being sentimental (the same issue which Mando and I were discussing yesterday) "If the more refined art is the higher, and the more refined in every case is that which appeals to the better sort of audience, the art which imitates anything and everything is manifestly most unrefined. The audience is supposed to be too dull to comprehend unless something of their own is thrown by the performers, who therefore indulge in restless movements." So.. Aristotle might mark down paintings of big-eyed children not because they were sentimental -- but because they would only appeal to an audience that could not respond to something more subtle. And... I wouldn't be surprised if 'sentimentality' were not disparaged until the art ideologies of the late 19th or early 20th Centuries elevated thought over feeling. ____________________________________________________________ All is not lost! Click now for professional data recovery. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc2QdRGAnQClp7RrL3RVkS8mDe wvoiS3CYGG924ZZLZqNH1vW/
