Introduction
Mr. Roger Fry is famously known as a
critic and an artist with high considerable opinionated works. He not only
discusses general questions of art and aesthetics, but also produces references
with many actual diagrams from the sphere of visual art, to which they are
accessible in volume. In his first chapter of the Transformations, Mr. Fry gave the distinctions between ‘pure and
impure’ arts, with disagreement and consideration that some works approximate
much more nearly than others to the ideal construction. But according to
Arnaud, Mr. Fry did not give in clear terms whatever he meant by ‘pure and
impure arts’. And this ambiguity gave rise to many presumptions such that in a
first sense, it looks as though by ‘pure’ he means without competition of
interest, and in the second sense, he might mean by ‘pure and impure’ perfection
or the failure of perfection of the aesthetic unification of various competing
interests in some or even all works of art. However, the thrust of this paper
is to expose in the criticisms of Louis Arnaud Reid, the disagreements and
considerations of Mr. Fry’s art as form.
The Dramatic Versus the
Plastic
Mr. Fry in the Transformations talks about the tensions
in visual art between psychological or dramatic interest, and plastic interest.
And thus in summary, he concludes that the blend of experiences is sporadically
rare and unusual that in most cases, there occur not fusion, but tensions of
interests between the psychological and the plastic. But Arnaud objecting this
conclusion, first tries to understand the possibility of keeping an equal and
fixed attention on a space less world of psychological entities and relations, and
thus, asks if it were possible to apprehend spatial relations?
Arnaud however, criticized Mr. Fry’s thesis by
positing two senses of appeal; appeal of the subject matter and the distinct
appeal of form. To the former appeal, he concludes that the differences of things
are affected by extra-aesthetic knowledge, as well as by the general background
of taste, training, and tradition; such that when explaining the Gospel
narratives, a pagan spectator would have different narrative view from a
Christian spectator. While the latter appeal is indifferent in proffering
explanation as it focuses on the form; with little or no emotions.
Is Fusion Possible?
Criticisms of Mr. Fry
In the book Vision and Design, Mr. Fry seem to claim
that there is fusion between experiences of the psychological and the plastic
interests. But Arnaud not too satisfied with Mr. Fry’s claim, decides to
refresh the understanding of the distinctions between ‘psychological’ fusion
and ‘aesthetic’ fusion (or aesthetic relevance) because Mr. Fry constantly ascribes
the wrong identification to both and thus presupposes that because
psychological fusion do not in particular cases occur therefore aesthetic
fusion is impossible. Arnaud however posits that aesthetic experience may
contain many meanings which should in essence be made one and inseparable in
the aesthetic whole.
Furthermore, Mr. Fry took the product of his analysis
of aesthetic experiences as if they were separate part of a composite whole.
He, while speaking of the differences between psychological and plastic
interest noted that these two kinds of representation are likely enough,
governed by diverse principles which thus imply certain differences and
difficulty in trying to conciliate them. But Arnaud replies that wherever a psychological
appeal is possible, it is perhaps more effective and poignant than the plastic
but then, with prolonged familiarity it inclines to evaporate and leave
plasticity as a more permanent, less rapidly exhausted, motive force. Such that
where pictures survive for a long period of time, their plastic appeal tends to
count more and more. However, ‘psychological elements evaporate where and when
they are elements of external allusion and mere illustration or extrinsic
interest’. But thus, introspection of actual aesthetic experience certainly
does appear to show the possibility of aesthetic fusion in both relatively
simple and more complex cases. And perhaps, perfection is probably attainable but
as the ideal of aesthetic experience.
Arnaud debunks any metaphorical claim that aesthetic
is always related to psychological fusion. For when there is a complex
experience and even when more psychological fusion occurs, there still remains
a complexity of meaning, perhaps, even though the complexities are being fused
and unified aesthetically, it still do not remove the idea of parts. Arnaud conclusively
strikes a balance that despite the whole emphasis of complexities and parts,
there is still reserves according to differences of things, and focus of
interest even on the same work.
The Importance, for
Fusion, of the Artist’s Interests
For Arnaud, fusion is a
necessity because the artist’s interest depends on the choice of subject either
spontaneously or an imagery material. So there is for him no conscious problem
of assimilation and no conscious conflict between dramatic subject and form.
Comments
Post a Comment