Every work of art utilizes symbols if it represents anything and all art represents something even if it is just shapes. It may exemplify the shapes that are presented or the pattern that they are presented in. Even a work we might not classify as representational symbolizes an emotion or feeling. If all art is made up of symbols which serve to convey the emotions that are so important in art, is there a way to judge how well symbols are portrayed? It seems like in Goodman’s theory the art is a product of its symbols so it follows that when judging art one should judge the symbols. Maybe if people could recognize common symbols an aspect of judging art should be the creative use of unusual symbols or the creative use of traditional symbols in unexpected ways.
Unexpected use of common symbols could be particularly striking in art if contrasting symbols caused contrasting emotional responses in the same person. A combination of emotions could also make one feel peculiar emotionally if they had not experienced the combination or they were unsure what to feel. Maybe there is a logical explanation for Bell’s peculiar emotion that does not necessitate the mysterious significant form. What he sees as significant form could be his mind interpreting symbols that he does not even consciously realize are there.
Each symbol can be artistic or not depending on its usage. The same artistic line in a drawing can be in a thermometer but it is not artistic then. This seems to mean that nothing included in art is exclusive to art which makes it very difficult to recognize when something is art. This is, of course, the very question Goodman sets out to answer.
To understand a work of art one would have to figure out all the symbols, then interpret their meaning in the culture at that time, and then interpret what the combination of meanings represents. Would it ever be possible to complete this task successfully?
No comments:
Post a Comment