For those who are interested, the essay in which Bell defines (or tries to define) significant form, is on Denis Dutton's site:
http://denisdutton.com/bell.htm Cheers; Chris On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:12 AM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > Michael; > > It was Clive Bell who used the term significant form to refer to a > particular > arrangement or attitude that could be presented in art. He used the term > to > mean much the same thing as the Beaux-Arts artists did but didn't attach > it to > the notion of the moral, as the Beaux-Arts artists did. That's why I > brought up > the term. I think it's curious that modern art theory, such as > significant form > (now , simply formalism) is never discussed in its historical use which > linked > it to the moral. Whether formalism is moral or not is separate from being > identical with any views of nature as it is or as presented. But since > the > moral has been cast off from modernist formalism, it can adhere to nature; > nature can be said to be moral now. That is the crux of the issue > regarding > your own definition. Where is the moral, in nature or in art? You say > that > nature demoralizes art. I suppose that puts it in art. Then you say art > moralizes nature. That puts it in nature. The moral is shuttled back and > forth. > OK. By what means? What agent is tossing the hot potato, the moral, back > and > forth between nature and art? > wc > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, July 30, 2012 7:25:00 AM > Subject: Re: is list dead? > > William > > > Your view seems to accept 'nature' as it is. > > Not "as is," but "as given." Nature, i.e., what I perceive as outside of > me, > preexists me and presents itself to me unaltered by me. (NOT unaltered by > my > perception, but the stimuli that arrive at my senses.) > > > The artists of the so-called Beaux > > Arts Style (capital S signifies that Style is a perceptual method) did > not > > accept Nature as it is but sought to idealize it, to perfect it, > according > to an > > imposed formal harmony. Where that harmony comes from is the issue > because > it > > may be -- for Beaux-Arts artists -- potentially present in Nature, it was > not > > explicitly present. I came from the mind and it was divinely inspired, > in > > accordance with God. An effort to make art in accordance with God's will > or > plan > > or grace was moral and it was exemplified by significant form (idealized > form). > > But the ancient Greeks already wrestled with this question. Should the > sculptor attempt to find the most perfect single model and emulate it? > Should > the sculptor find the most perfect discrete forms in several models--a face > here, a torso there, legs and arms in others? Or should the sculptor seek > to > discern the perfection of each part and the entire whole implicit but not > present in individuals and then produce the paragon in a single statue (in > effect, an expression of Platonic idealism)? The common feature in all of > these approaches is not the qualities that may or may not inhere in the > natural models but the perception and description of them in the sculptor. > The > sculptor abstracts or educes the schema of the models and propounds a rule > or > canon that declares the superiority and moral desirablity of these > measurements, proporitons, fitness, etc. > > > The chief problem with your view "art moralizes nature; nature moralizes > art' is > > the absence of a definition of nature. Does this nature have a > consciousness? Is > > it God? Is it reality? And what is art if it can be separate from > nature? > > What is that a problem, if I cannot change the fact or genesis of Nature? > What > is any human activity and product? Are they not all "separate from nature" > because they transform and modify natural objects? > > BTW, I say, "Nature DEmoralizes art." I mean it as a play on words: Nature > removes the morality of art by having no concern with or being constrained > by > the rules of art; and it demoralizes art, i.e., artists who cannot come > close > to the splendor of nature, but can only produce different kinds of > admirable > or dazzling or alluring facsimiles of natural objects. > > > Let's take the case of Constable. Here was an artist who wanted to paint > nature > > as it is. But of course he couldn't do that. He had to re-arrange, > select, > > exaggerate, abstract, invent, and yet in the end he made paintings that > are > > 'natural, seemingly unidealized presentations of nature. The same could > be > said > > of Courbet. One could argue that both artists followed a 'significant > form' > > theory and yet their art does not have the graceful artificiality of the > > Beaux-Arts Style. That art (Victoriana stuff and our friend Bouguereau) > made > the > > most of linear harmony at the expense of natural complexity and the rough > > presence of nature (as in Constable or Courbet). This both the nature of > > Constable and Courbet and the Style (as in Bouguereau) seem to satisfy > your > > synthetic -- tautology? -- definition and the two kinds of art contradict > each > > other and both leave the notion of 'significant form' begging a stable > > definition, too. > > > Why do you mention "significant form," other than just to refute or discard > it? That seems like a straw man argument. I did not mention it, not did I > mean > to imply it. (I infer that you intend to connect it to Fry's argument; > otherwise why would you use that very recognizable term?) > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady
