If art is made up of symbols that people interpret to find meaning in the work of art then art starts to sound like a language. Symbols that are understood by the culture are put into the work of art and then people hear or see them to determine what the artist is telling them. If this art is used to communicate emotion then Goodman’s theory begins to sound like Tolstoy’s theory. In Goodman’s theory symbols create the meaning in art, but does art need to communicate emotion in Goodman’s view. In some ways it seems that for art, at the very least to be accepted by viewers, needs to communicate some sort of emotion even if it is just a pleasant feeling. Otherwise what incentive would people have to use or look at art? Going to see a painting, for example, does not serve a practical usage unless one wants to understand what other people have been making a fuss over but then someone had to start making a fuss over it. Art must serve some purpose for people then and it seems like that is emotional connection.
Do you think Tolstoy and Goodman have compatible theories about art?
This is an interesting question you have brought up about Tolstoy and Goodman being similar in theories. I would say that they certainly do have similar views, but that Tolstoy isn't where we need to stop this conversation. I think that when it comes down to the synthesis of Goodman's concepts into similarities, there are three pillars that he pulls together into one:
ReplyDeleteTolstoy is certainly the emotion side of his theory,
Plato's argument of the forms comes back into play,
and Bell's concepts of aesthetics is the final piece.
With the three of these theories brought together, we begin to see what the inspiration behind Goodman's work is. So yes, I do think that it is certainly a taste of Tolstoy, but I feel that we can't forget the other two in this discussion, for otherwise we begin to hide away from some of the other important things that are Goodman's philosophies.