 |
 |
Dear Martin, I was being provocative but serious at the same time. Romanticism is a huge collection of philosophical approaches to art and experience and self-hood etc. I'm sure we could both make a collection of readings to support many differing views of emotional responses and artists. My own readings would come from Hegel and German Romanticism and thence through Coleridge but also via Blake. You could extend these usefully into Dewey (art as experience). My view would be that claims of simple or direct emotional responses to landscape emerging in unmediated ways in art objects is rubbish. As a coda, I would indicate that a phenomenological account of such artistic activities helps us avoid a simple self. Cheers Keith > On 10 Jan 2014, at 7:31 pm, "Salisbury, Martin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Poets may express something like their own emotions but only adolescent poets show such rubbish to any one else. Of course, many artists claim their artifacts are expressive of a thing they call the self as artist. That is, many artists are adolescent." > > Could you explain what this means please? I am mystified by it. Does this mean that all art and literature that falls within the area of Romanticism (characterised by e.g. emotional response to landscape), 'rubbish'? ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------