more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 20343

[filed under theme 21. Aesthetics / A. Aesthetic Experience / 2. Aesthetic Attitude ]

Full Idea

We could not have a feeling for the beauties of art unless we had been correspondingly moved in front of nature.

Gist of Idea

A love of nature must precede a love of art

Source

Richard Wollheim (Art and Its Objects [1968], 43)

Book Ref

Wollheim,Richard: 'Art and Its Objects' [Penguin 1975], p.115


A Reaction

Wollheim offers this in defence of Kant's view, without necessarily agreeing. Similarly one could hardly care for fictional characters, but not for real people. So the aesthetic attitude may arise from life, rather than from art. Is art hence unimportant?


The 16 ideas from 'Art and Its Objects'

It is claimed that the expressive properties of artworks are non-physical [Wollheim]
A drawing only represents Napoleon if the artist intended it to [Wollheim]
If artworks are not physical objects, they are either ideal entities, or collections of phenomena [Wollheim]
The ideal theory says art is an intuition, shaped by a particular process, and presented in public [Wollheim]
The ideal theory of art neglects both the audience and the medium employed [Wollheim]
Style can't be seen directly within a work, but appreciation needs a grasp of style [Wollheim]
The traditional view is that knowledge of its genre to essential to appreciating literature [Wollheim]
We often treat a type as if it were a sort of token [Wollheim]
An interpretation adds further properties to the generic piece of music [Wollheim]
A musical performance has virtually the same features as the piece of music [Wollheim]
Interpretation is performance for some arts, and critical for all arts [Wollheim]
A love of nature must precede a love of art [Wollheim]
Some say art must have verbalisable expression, and others say the opposite! [Wollheim]
If beauty needs organisation, then totally simple things can't be beautiful [Wollheim]
A criterion of identity for works of art would be easier than a definition [Wollheim]
Classes rarely share properties with their members - unlike universals and types [Wollheim]