Aesthetic Experience
Motion in the Pictorial Work
The reference to Kant can be explained. There is no motion in the pictorial work. In at least one sense. The object, we think, just stays put. Yet we find motion there. The motion is not just in the depicting of a moving subject in the work. That is sort of obvious and in fact is not any motion at all. The sort of motion in the horses. We notice that they are not moving, in part maybe because we think they should be moving. Kant's lesson, Dufrenne says, is this: "movement in the subject precedes movement in the object."(278)
Time in the Pictorial Work
"...the time that animates pictorial space must belong to the structure of the painting."(277) Are we here equating pictorial with painting? I don't think so, at least it needn't be that way.
The Pictorial Work
Okay, we begin again with our investigation of the aesthetic experience. In particular we consider the pictorial work. I think I am a little out of order from Dufrenne, but we have done the foundational work, and we can pick and choose a little bit. And we may return to the musical work sometime later.
Restart
I have been spending some time reading Dufrenne and redesigning the website. I am not entirely happy with the aesthetics of the site, but I am going to leave it for now (if you have some suggestions leave a comment - keep in mind that I am not an artist, nor a graphic designer of any sort).
What does the work bring to the spectator?
What does the work of art offer?
Remember what we said. We are not arguing the existence of aesthetic objects or works of art. We take as a starting point that there are such things. The preceding entry has been a preliminary investigation into why the work of art needs an audience, why it needs a public. The work of art must be viewed or otherwise experienced by people. That is the sense in which we, as spectators, complete the work, make it possible for it to become what it is. There can be no work of art without an appreciative audience.
