Aesthetic Theories

This weeks readings were somewhat tedious. It required a lot of strenuous brain activity, and yet I still feel like I have no clue what aesthetic theories are. With that said, in this blog it could be a possibility that I am distorting the true meanings of these theories so I am attempting to try to understand these theories.

Du Bos’ theory sparked a great deal of interest because we discussed this issue in class in the form of a question: How do we receive pleasure from movies that are sad? Does this not cause pain which is an awful feeling, and not pleasurable in the least bit? According to Du Bos our imagination is so powerful that it has the “capacity to stir emotions by means of representations/ imitations, rather than by beliefs held to be true. (7)” His argument follows the logic that passions are the main thrust of enjoyment and excitement without them humanity would be doomed to boredom (and we all know this is not the greatest feeling). What artform does is imitate these passions to ignite the passion in the audience, which is superficial because it does not imply the real pain and sadness experienced in the real world in association with real objects. What is the difference between the real world and the superficial imitated world? The answer is duration the feeling lasts only for a limited time when attending a movie and leaves you as soon as you leave it. It is restricted to a certain space and time. That is why the whole experience is pleasurable because the imagination is able to connect with the “superficialness” of the events played out and is able to be free from feeling these emotions that are not permanent. What happens when a movie hits really close to home? The events depicted are so real to an individual than does this theory work? I believe that the pain is ignited and lasts for a much longer duration and in this case the events that take place in the movies cannot be separated from real life, and the result is pain. The individual in this case would not return to the movies.

Wolterstorff ‘s article specifically lays out Bell’s argument on the interrelatedness of religion and art. He describes religious experience as one of the same as aesthetic experience. What is the cause of this experience? According to him it is form. What is interesting about this argument is that kavya was nothing close to religious. As a matter of fact its purpose was totally different. It was solely for the purpose of enjoyment and was not structured by certain rituals, people attended dramas and read poetry for specifically this reason and not for religious reasons. The reason why religion was infused into kavya and drama was because religion and the state were inseparable. Religion was “markers” of identity for the audience attending drama and reading poetry. They were symbols and signs that they could easily relate to making the experience enjoyable and exciting.

Another interesting theme presented in the article is that of good and bad. It is interesting that Bell would say that we experience beauty because artwork is related to all things good and thus, being a product of God. Don’t we experience beauty in all things ugly and dark as well because of its uniqueness? Are these things associated with the devil? It’s funny that most religions stress this duality, but ultimately they preach that all things are unified.