Tyson Frederick
Art 282b: Seminar in Comtemporary
Art History: Empathy
Professor Anthony Raynsford
Blog: Worringer: Abstraction and Empathy 1
5/12/2012
It seems there is
a difference to Worringer about the meaning of beauty in a “thing”, i.e. a
natural thing versus an artistic thing.
How do we relate these, how do we define them? Are they the same or are they parallels? It would be worth noting that scientific
discovery is continued to be made every day, redefining definitions of what
was. The way that visual spatial aspects
attract the viewer are justified in modern art critique because, according to
my reading of Worringer, aesthetic judgments have been placed in relation to
the subject, the viewer; everything becomes relative to the viewer, the object
has a direct connection through empathy with the current subject. Worringer proposes that this is only one of
two contraries that exist when considering the beauty of an artistic object. Hence he thinks artistic objects and natural
objects may be similar in nature but not exactly the same. He is reconsidering our definitions of thing
and art object.
Perhaps
not all artistic objects are to be viewed in regards to their beauty and the
way one might transcend their own ideas into an artistic object. The condition of nature, “in so far as by
nature is understood the visible surface of things.” He argues that, “natural beauty is on no
account to be regarded as a condition of the work of art. This being said he strives for an
anti-thesis, or “counter-pole to aesthetics which proceed not from man’s urge
to empathy but his urge to abstraction”.
This
urge to abstract the object to disassemble from the norm leads, for me, to my
own abstract work. My abstractions want
to leave a fleeting, moving away from transition of what was originally placed,
labeled, or claimed.
The
importance to defining negative aspects of process, failure, skepticism, and
risk are part of everyday life and every artist. How might documenting the “unknown” or the “failure”
provide an opposite effect of empathy to imitate or self-replace, to embody the
object as it seems? When we see the
beauty in something we see the beauty in ourselves but when we see the disgust
of something we don’t see the disgust in ourselves. This is perplexing.
These aspects were
shunned to be reported or displayed in any way other than those of “natural
beauty”. How perhaps does something
hideous get explained in a heroic way, in a natural way, in a false way to say
the least? For Worringer it does not
truly get expressed this way, and I feel this is where abstraction is born for
Worringer. Why should we not show the
nuisances of the artistic life, or life in general within artwork? This perhaps is the question, “why do we
leave certain things out?”
By
taking a generally known idea or process into a new dialogue or context referring
to the dissolution of its representation, the inharmonic juxtapose of
beautifying the grotesque, the untrue nature of what has been presupposed
through culture. Society, and art historical dictation and critique, the artist
can imply that cultural and societal values of art and life in general may not
be represented in and as of its true nature.
Worringer’s work is about questioning what appears to be of “norm” but
is not necessarily true.
No comments:
Post a Comment