mal4mac
10-04-2009, 06:35 AM
Whose account of aesthetic experience do you agree with?
For Kant, aesthetic pleasure is unique and not to be confused with the pleasures of the senses. It is a mental activity, felt as Beauty, not an. intellectual inquiry, nor an attempt to satisfy practical desires. (p.8-9)*
For Richards, psychology has no place for a unique 'aesthetic emotion’. So aesthetic experience is the usual stuff but with a special form (disinterestedness, detachment …) that may be an arbitrary part of the experience. But sometimes it may be essential. Aesthetic experiences are only a finer organization of ordinary experiences. (p.11-12)
Literary critics often dodge away from trying to elucidate what aesthetic value actually is. For instance, Harold Bloom leaves such definitions in a gnostic fog. In a sense, this doesn't matter. What really matters is aesthetic value and trying to experience a lot of it! But Richards seems to be thinking very clearly on this matter.
Anyone know of critics influenced by Richards who write as clearly and as well?
* Page references are to I. A. Richards, Principles of Literary Criticism Routledge. 2001 - an excellent read.
For Kant, aesthetic pleasure is unique and not to be confused with the pleasures of the senses. It is a mental activity, felt as Beauty, not an. intellectual inquiry, nor an attempt to satisfy practical desires. (p.8-9)*
For Richards, psychology has no place for a unique 'aesthetic emotion’. So aesthetic experience is the usual stuff but with a special form (disinterestedness, detachment …) that may be an arbitrary part of the experience. But sometimes it may be essential. Aesthetic experiences are only a finer organization of ordinary experiences. (p.11-12)
Literary critics often dodge away from trying to elucidate what aesthetic value actually is. For instance, Harold Bloom leaves such definitions in a gnostic fog. In a sense, this doesn't matter. What really matters is aesthetic value and trying to experience a lot of it! But Richards seems to be thinking very clearly on this matter.
Anyone know of critics influenced by Richards who write as clearly and as well?
* Page references are to I. A. Richards, Principles of Literary Criticism Routledge. 2001 - an excellent read.