" The idea that the artwork is a container for projected subjectivity is probably the most established aesthetic view today..."
If it is the case then viewer can project "masterpiece" to be contained in the piece of junk. Artist projects subjectivity in the creation. Viewers projection does not change the immanent value of artwork. For me artwork does contain independent set of valuable 'information' for human brain, which Clive Bell called 'Significant Form'. His description of it was not broad enough to cover all art forms from the point of global theory. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Worringer and his predecessors Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:58:05 -0700 (PDT) Your summary distorts the excerpts because you didn't mention that the chief difference between Lipps and Lee is Lipps limiting empathy to the to movement of the human body whereas Lee does not impose limits -- thus departing from an earlier agreement with Lipps. Worringer defines this broadened notion of empathy as having two two impulses, abstraction and empathy. That's about it. The idea that the artwork is a container for projected subjectivity is probably the most established aesthetic view today, replacing the earlier, formalist idea that the art object contains independent "significant form". So now, what's your beef? WC ________________________________ From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 8:30:42 AM Subject: Worringer and his predecessors Rader's "A Modern Book of Esthetics" has finally arrived, and the brief excerpts from Lipps and Lee are a bit disappointing. The 3 pages excerpted from "The Beautiful" by Vernon Lee tell us nothing about her concept of "empathy" except that it could include any association that a perceivor might have regarding the perceived. "Empathy" is not just "attributing what goes on in us when we look at a shape to the shape itself" -- but it also includes the "complex mental process by which we (all unsuspectingly) invest that inert , bodiless shape, with the stored up, averaged, and essential modes of our activity". (Has anyone read the entire book? It's still in print, presumably kept there by fans of all things Victorian) Nearly 9 pages have been excerpted from Theodor Lipps' "Archiv fur die gesamte Psychologie" (the entirety of which is hardly available today in German, much less English) , but still it seems as if he has barely begun to discuss "einfuhlung". Only one example was given, regarding the feelings one might have while watching a person move: "In a word, I am now with my feeling of activity entirely and wholly in the moving figure. Even spatially, if we can speak of the spatial extent of the ego, I am in its place. I am transported into it. I am in its place. I am transported into it. I am, so far as my consciousness is concerned, entirely and wholly indentical with it. Thus feeling myself active in the observed human figure, I feel also in it free, facile, proud. This is esthetic imitation and this imitation is the same time esthetic empathy" Can we then conclude, on the basis of this single example, that Lipps is proposing that esthetic imitation is best facilitated by the arts that present the most clearly recognizable human figures? (BTW - it is so, so bourgeois German of him to enjoy feeling "free, facile, and proud") Happily, Rader's anthology also includes 8 pages excerpted from Worringer's "Abstraction and Empathy", which includes the following footnote: "That we today can empathize ourselves even into the form of a pyramid is not to be denied, and in general the possibility of an empathy into abstract forms, of which much will be said later, should not be denied. But everything contradicts the supposition that this impulse of empathy was effective in the creators of the pyramidal form.." Oh really? Would anyone here care to speculate on just how that supposition might be contradicted? ************************** >>And if so --- might you point to where either one of them (Lee and Lipps) suggests that an empathic response was inversely conditional to the degree of abstraction? Did either one of them ever suggest that empathy could not achieve "the escape from the "arbitrariness of organic existence" (and didn't Vernon Lee write ghost stories?) I'm just wondering whether Lipps and Lee may have had a broader concept of "empathy" than the one which Worringer is opposing to abstraction. (CM) >Yes, but apparenbtly you have not. Worringer's addition to the empathy view was the notion of a polar opposite, abstraction. Lipps and Lee dealt with variations of empathy. See essays by both in Rader's A Modern Book of Esthetics, part three, beginning p. 367. But since you seem to do all your "research" on Wickipedia, I suppose you'll never check out the references. Meanwhile, you are quiter wrong in your assumptions, as usual.(WC) ____________________________________________________________ Find great deals on the latest styles of phones. Click now! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxZxEyqSj4Lf9WXO9Zgf65WDt VBSvnBk40w9GJPSJ3XwLDU6F2ViL2/
