Aesthetics and Discussion

[Anonymous No.6793273]

Earlier an anon had a good idea for a discussion in aesthetics that, unfortunately, did not garner many replies. I think we can have a pretty fun discussion on some accessible questions involving Lessing's and Mendelssohn's views on the matter (no prior reading required). Here's a little information to get us started:

Mendelssohn's 'On Sentiments':
Here, he basically addresses the notion of perfected sensate cognition, which he describes as being a state of knowledge or perception in which the whole is taken in along with the knowledge of it's individual parts. So, for instance, upon originally viewing a work, one gains satisfaction from viewing the whole. This satisfaction gradually diminishes as the individual parts are analyzed because the whole is lost. However, If one is able to step back and observe the whole again WITH the knowledge of the individual parts, one has attained perfected sensate cognition, or a more perfect state of perception. It's basically how to enjoy art.

Lessing's Laocoön basically addresses what separates poetry and art. What the limitations are in each of these and where they find middle ground. For lessing, poetry is limited in the sense of (and im implementing more contemporary understanding here) the finite working memory. Therefore, a description of a scene in which too many parts are analyzed before returning to the whole fails as a work because the first elements are already forgotten and the artistic whole is never achieved. Painting is limited in the sense that no motion can occur. So a very limited view is given.
(1/3)

[Anonymous No.6793289]

>>6793273
Furthermore, Lessing addresses where the two come together. So, basically, Laocoön (the title of the essay he writes) is a statue depicting Laocoön directly before the death of himself and his sons, this scene is present in the Aeneid. It incorporates both poetic and sculptural elements. While it is limited in its movement, the reader is able to fill in the blanks with his own knowledge. The ultimate anguish is never attempted to be sculptured and the viewer is allowed, what lessing coins as "free play of the imagination". Lessing stresses the importance the allowance of freedom in the viewing of the work because one gains pleasure from exercising one's imagination. Thus Laocoön's ultimate anguish is filled in by the reader and the sculptor does not even attempt to portray the anguish.

Some things cannot be merged. Aeneas's shield is one. It works well in poetry but fails to be drawn because the elements cannot possible fill a limited shield in such a finite space with such depth; it isn't possible. Many artists have tried and, as Lessong believes, failed.

(2/3)

[Anonymous No.6793293]

>>6793273
In my most plebest opinion with no prior knowledge of anything: I find that the "best" art is the one where you can break down various elements of it, find out how they were constructed and even why and how that specific element works by itself, BUT where you're still at a loss for explaining why the "whole" of it still has such a big impact even though you know exactly how the elements were put together and what each one of them does individually.

[Anonymous No.6793300]

>>6793289
<--- Aeneas's shield

Here's where some other /lit/izens can hop in here. I'll put forth two pretty controversial questions involving aesthetics, relating to Lessing, and that do not require any readings of his texts (considering most of you probably haven't read Laocoön).

1.) considering Lessing's advocation for the "free play of imagination" (as defined in my previous post) within artistic works, what does that say about minimalist modern art? Most critics agree that Lessing would despise such works, for he had a fairly strict adherence to classicism and the Greeks. However, one cannot deny that minimalist modern art allows for a large range of free play. I think, however, a valid counter argument could say that a blank canvas allows for ultimate free play of imagination and yet, that can't be classified as art, can it?

2.) Lessing stated, controversially, that artistic works should never contain solely the disgusting. For instance, a painting portraying a face full of maggots, no matter how masterfully done, will fail as an artistic work because after the shock value is gone, nothing will remain but revulsion. One can never view these works in perfected sensate cognition pleasurably (perfected sensate cognition as defined earlier by my post on Mendelssohn) because the merits of the work lie within the individual parts and not the whole, for the whole is revolting and gives no pleasure. What does /lit/ think? Counter example?
(3/3)

[Anonymous No.6793305]

if it looks good i like it

the end

[Anonymous No.6793314]

>>6793305
Just go.

Interesting thread, the topic of aestethics always struck a nerve with me. Let me read through that text, I'm really unfocussed right now though. lel

[Anonymous No.6793329]

>>6793293
>I find that the "best" art is the one where you can break down various elements of it, find out how they were constructed and even why and how that specific element works by itself
I think that Mendelssohn and Lessing would agree that this is a very necessary step in the process of viewing an artistic work, I agree.

>even though you know exactly how the elements were put together and what each one of them does individually.
So, basically, both the aforementioned guys believe that one gains pleasure in looking at something as a whole, right? However, do you ever feel as if you're overwhelmed by the amount of minute details and this detracts from your pleasure? For instance, do you feel you must look closer and analyze individually? This is all well and good but when one does this he misses the whole. So, to rectify this, if one gains adequate knowledge of an artistic work's innerworking parts, one can step back and appreciate the work as a whole, devoid of distraction, for the individual parts have been assessed. They are working in harmony to produce the whole and one knows this when viewing the work in perfected sensate cognition. Does this make sense?

[Anonymous No.6793349]

>>6793329
Eh my post is sloppy.

It should read "when viewing once was achieved perfected sensate cognition" not "with perfected sensate cognition"

Also, to more basically answer >>6793293
The whole matters because this is their method of viewing an entire work. So, they must address the work as a whole and not merely focus on the individual parts, if that's what you were asking.

[Anonymous No.6793357]

>>6793349
*'was' should read 'one has'

I'm returning this phone

[Anonymous No.6793361]

>>6793314
>Just go
suck my dick faggot

[Anonymous No.6793365]

Weird, I was just reading about the myth of Laocoon today. The variations of his story occur in the lost Epic Cycles - Virgil is the only other verification of the content.

Modern conceptual art allows for a wider play, and is concerned with challenging those limitations. I ultimately think art such as the sculpture of Laocoon & his sons is superior because it possesses concept AND form.

[Anonymous No.6793389]

>>6793273

there's a ten minute youtube video of a camera mounted on the front of a train in tokyo someone set to a Burial track. it is beautiful because the city is gorgeous at dusk and the music is dark and melancholic. When I watch it I feel like I am there in that city. I've never been there but it reminds me of the times I've been in my city when it was beautiful at night, when you're enjoying other people's company and having a good time. I'm not physically there in Tokyo, obviously, but I've been 'there' where I live, out, enjoying life, marveling at shit.

I've found that all beautiful and moving music, literature, poetry, art, film etc. insinuates this totality to me, the totality of life and reality. That's the best way I can describe it I guess.

[Anonymous No.6793407]

>>6793329
>So, to rectify this, if one gains adequate knowledge of an artistic work's innerworking parts, one can step back and appreciate the work as a whole, devoid of distraction, for the individual parts have been assessed. They are working in harmony to produce the whole and one knows this when viewing the work in perfected sensate cognition. Does this make sense?

It makes sense. What I meant is, say that we have a great song, I can tell you exactly what each part is doing and "why" it works, but if it's a really great song, when I will step back I will still not be able to actually explain to you why those elements put together produce such a great whole. If it's just a "good" song, I can tell you why it "works". But if it's a great song, even if you know all the minute details of each part, you still won't be able to explain what makes it so great.

all I was saying that for me standard that turned out to be true in my personal experience, is that great art cannot be explained through technical analysis. for me, that standard has been, that despite me being able to analyze it, I can't logically explain why the whole is so good. i don't think you can make great art as a process, it either happens or it doesn't and there is something transcendent at play here where the artist is merely a vehicle for putting out what needs to get out. you can learn the "craft" but you can't learn how to make great art, and even when you are analyzing great art, you're always going to be limited to the craft of it (which might be great in itself but not what makes the art great). I don't think you necessarily need the knowledge of the craft to grasp the greatness of something, because great art communicates to the "spirit" directly, that's the difference between something well-crafted and something that is truly inspired. I'll stop there before I trigger the atheists. :^)

[Anonymous No.6793435]

>>6793365
>Weird, I was just reading about the myth of Laocoon today. The variations of his story occur in the lost Epic Cycles - Virgil is the only other verification of the content.
Quite right! Perhaps I should clear up the issue of who Laocoön was as well:
Laocoön is a character present in the Aeneid and is one of the Trojans that question the admittance of the Trojan horse. In the Aeneid (unfortunately I do not have the text on me but I'll do my best from memory), shortly after voicing his doubt, Laocoön's sons are snatched by serpents from the sea and shortly after, Laocoön himself is consumed. The book writes of Laocoön's supreme anguish at the death of his sons for it was his fault for doubting the Trojan horse (it was, I believe, considered a gift to Athena and thus in doubting it, he angered the gods and cost the lives of his sons). The anguish, however, is not displayed as it is written in the sculpture. He does not howl with agony or pain or writhe in sorrow but rather seems to accept his fate gracefully. This is because, as I said, Lessing believes the viewer must be allowed to project his empathy and must be allowed free play of imagination. Also, because snarling in rage and sobbing would be considered 'disgusting' and thus would fail as an artistic work, for, as I earlier stated, Lessing believes the disgusting fails to elicit pleasure.

[Anonymous No.6793473]

>>6793407
I think it's important for me to point out that neither philosophers are attempting to say that analyzing the individual parts allots any knowledge as to what makes the work 'great'. Rather, they are merely explaining how one may gain the most pleasure from viewing a work. I do not think that either of them would say that art may be produced by placing individual parts in a certain order in a systematic fashion. In fact, they would probably agree with you! Perfected sensate cognition is merely an attainment that allows for pure appreciation (devoid of distraction).

[Anonymous No.6793526]

>>6793407
>it either happens or it doesn't and there is something transcendent at play here where the artist is merely a vehicle for putting out what needs to get out. you can learn the "craft" but you can't learn how to make great art, and even when you are analyzing great art, you're always going to be limited to the craft of it (which might be great in itself but not what makes the art great). I don't think you necessarily need the knowledge of the craft to grasp the greatness of something, because great art communicates to the "spirit" directly

You put my thoughts into the words perfectly.

Art is probably the biggest reason, why I doubt atheism. I've always thought of art as some kind of puzzle parts, which are meant to complete something trancendential

[Anonymous No.6793604]

>>6793273

So for Lessing, would film be the highest form of art, as in being a dynamic painting?

[Anonymous No.6793605]

>>6793526
>Art is probably the biggest reason, why I doubt atheism.
Interesting, what do you mean?

[Anonymous No.6793641]

>>6793604
>So for Lessing, would film be the highest form of art, as in being a dynamic painting?
Great, great question and one that is frequently brought forth. It would seem that film bridges the gap between poetry and visual art restricted by lack of movement. However, film presents it's own problems as well. One of which is, of course, free play of imagination. One could argue that a certain degree of viewer imagination is sacrificed because everything is presented for you. In painting, one can imagine the here and after that contribute to the moment depicted. In poetry, one can obviously imagine the scene and characters with relative flexibility and the viewpoint is not restricted. Basically, I would argue that Lessing would consider film as more of an artist telling you what to see rather than allowing you to recreate some of this yourself. These are not my personal views and the subject is very controversial but I think this may be Lessing's response

[Anonymous No.6793687]

>>6793300

Regarding question 2, could Lolita serve as a counter-example? The ostensible subject matter; a muderous pedophile and wife-beater, who is precisely not disgusting as he disappears behind the mediation of language?

[Anonymous No.6793745]

>>6793687
Well that's a great question and I can't give a definitive yes or no. It's certainly open for discussion. I think a valid question woukd be to ask whether or not Lolita is 'disgusting' as defined by Lessing. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I would be more inclined to say that Lolita allows for some beauty in its pages. Meaning that, the work is not solely disgusting, to me. A disgusting work for Lessing would be one that supplies shock value. So, does Lolita supply shock value devoid of beauty? I personally would say no. The work is beautiful even after, and perhaps more so, after the initial shock of pedophilia has worn off. Why? It's difficult to say.

I really don't mean to flame here, but Lessing would probably tear apart George RR Martin's descriptions of shatting in the grass because, once the shock has worn off, nothing remains but revulsion. No pleasure is gained from reading, whereas Lolita elicits pleasure from its readers. This is certainly a generalization and I really don't have the answers!

I have to go for a bit /lit/ but try and keep the discussion going and the thread bumped! Anything pertaining to aesthetics is allowed, it isn't limited to Lessing and Mend! I'll be back in a bit

[Anonymous No.6793777]

And people say /lit/ can't have discussion...

[Anonymous No.6793781]

*caution, stoner logic ahead*
>>6793605
Sorry for my english, but I've already mentioned it before
>"I've always thought of art as some kind of puzzle parts, which are meant to complete something trancendental"

I know this is illogical, but as the guy before me said,
>>6793407
I get this feeling, that great art(ists) communicates to something greater, which "inspires" us, which leads to us grasping the conception of something greater. So, basically, it rejects the idea of rejection of deity(ies).

I should probably go to sleep, because my head is spinning

[Anonymous No.6793886]

This thread is a good example of how dated aesthetics is, by now industrious people have outgrown it like we did religion and moral absolutism. It's only useful for those who need pleasant stimuli or to pass the time.

It's basically a remnant of the
bicameral mind. That's why it's usually the less intellectually gifted, the more romantic, who gravitate towards it.

[Anonymous No.6793911]

>>6793886
I'll be back later, but I reiterate: the unclean observations ITT sound so superstitious. There's no attempt at cleanliness. With art, we still believe in miracles.

[Anonymous No.6793932]

>>6793781
>>6793407
>>6793526

The idea that expresses something transcendent is something I can agree with even as an atheist, but for me it seems that it expresses something closer the Schopenhauer's idea of the Will, or Hegel's notion of Spirit, which I can't decide between as both seem to represent something important about art. Schopenhauer's idea of how art reveals a direct connection to the primordial will plays very nicely with the less representative forms of art like music (which of course Schopenhaeur thought was the highest form of art), where there is a simple and basic connection to the work itself. However, Hegel's notion of Spirit explains the communicative role of art, its importance in our subjective self understanding, and its role in shaping how we view the world. Ultimately, the highest role of art is to reveal freedom itself, which is best represent in the embodied and dynamic form of the drama, particularly tragedy.

[Anonymous No.6793958]

>>6793300
Concerning the first question, I'd like to think of a piece of art as a kind of labyrinth. The more freedom the work gives its audience, the bigger the "labyrinth". For a labyrinth to be satisfying, entertaining, impressive to someone it has to be big, with lots of things to explore, but most importantly the maze runner needs to be able to get out in order to experience satisfaction.

Ergo, a work of art needs to give its audience freedom, but too much freedom ultimately leads to frustration and dissatisfaction, as it is the case with minimalistic works. But of course works with too much information already mapped out are like an extremely easy labyrinth through which you also get a lot of hints and shortcuts and whatnot, also resulting in dissatisfaction.

[Anonymous No.6793999]

>>6793886
>This thread is a good example of how dated aesthetics is, by now industrious people have outgrown it like we did religion and moral absolutism. It's only useful for those who need pleasant stimuli or to pass the time.
>It's basically a remnant of the bicameral mind. That's why it's usually the less intellectually gifted, the more romantic, who gravitate towards it.
What a needless attack! Those are some hot opinions! I suppose less intellectual minds such as Hegel and Kant can't quite grasp the intellect you've attained!

>>6793932
Very interesting post. It has been a while since I've read Hegel and I need to brush up. Why the drama? Can you explain? >>6793958
>Concerning the first question, I'd like to think of a piece of art as a kind of labyrinth. The more freedom the work gives its audience, the bigger the "labyrinth". For a labyrinth to be satisfying, entertaining, impressive to someone it has to be big, with lots of things to explore, but most importantly the maze runner needs to be able to get out in order to experience satisfaction.
>Ergo, a work of art needs to give its audience freedom, but too much freedom ultimately leads to frustration and dissatisfaction, as it is the case with minimalistic works. But of course works with too much information already mapped out are like an extremely easy labyrinth through which you also get a lot of hints and shortcuts and whatnot, also resulting in dissatisfaction.
This entire post is great. Really, I enjoyed the labyrinth analogy. Only, I would say that a minimalist piece of work fails to construct a coherent labyrinth at all (in some cases). So that, the entrance and exit are poorly defined.

[Anonymous No.6794037]

>>6793911

>I'll be back later

We already get it. You like to play the naive utilitarian. We don't really need a round two of your middling pageantry.

[Anonymous No.6794046]

>>6794037
That isn't OP, bud. I'm OP. Can't you wander off to another thread? If you don't want to discuss aesthetics, you can meme or make another john green thread or whatever it is that you do

[Anonymous No.6794106]

>>6794046

>That isn't OP, bud. I'm OP.

And? I wasn't talking to you.

Whatever it is that you do desperately needs to start including working on your reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.6794124]

Also, so there's no more confusion, I'll do my best to explain perfected sensate cognition:

When presented with this painting, the viewer should, Mendelssohn argues, to through a few stages.

When originally presented with the work, one's interest is sparked and he perceives it as a whole. He may mentally acknowledge that "yes, this a beautiful work. I like it." There is, however, a tinge of anxiety creeping within that there is much to analyze, much to see. One cannot few the whole with pure pleasure without analyzing the parts.

Then, one's eye begins to wander and the various elements of the painting come under specific scrutiny (children in the tree, columns, logs). The viewer should then analyze each part and see all there is to see, so as to avoid said anxiety.

Then, once all the parts have been assessed, one can take in the painting as a whole with the knowledge that all has been perceived and one May know enjoy the work without any anxiety or distraction, thus resulting in an elevated sense of pleasure. This is all perfected sensate cognition means. I find it immensely useful in analyzing paintings so that I don't become overwhelmed by the elements.

While this may seem common sense to some, to others it may not be so. Keep in mind that Lessing and Mendelssohn were relative pioneers in their fields of artistic criticism through philosophy.

[Anonymous No.6794129]

>>6793999

For Hegel, freedom is to be understood concretely (i.e. in its real, historical context). Drama is the best way exemplifying this as it represents concrete individuals who demonstrate their freedom dynamically through their actions. Antigone was a particular favourite of Hegel's through how it demonstrates the conflict of morals and Antigone's choice in the face of this.

[Anonymous No.6794141]

Does anybody have any recommendations for books that cover enlightenment aesthetics?

[Anonymous No.6794249]

>>6793389
This one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLgidLHCSk8

[Anonymous No.6794322]

The idea reminds me a lot of the idea of a hermeneutic circle in literature.

When one reads a book for the first time, your understanding of the book is built up sentence by sentence. However the individual sentences themselves can only be understood in the context of the work as a whole; so when one rereads a book you gain a richer understanding of the individual sentences via their relation to the whole.

I'm just spitballing here, but Gadamer argued that the circle also exists between texts and the cultures they exist in, i.e. the other texts that they reference and influenced by.

Could a parallel be drawn with Mendellsohn's ideas? So, our aesthetic experience of individual works is enhanced by our experience of other works in the same tradition, e.g. seeing how they use the same techniques to different ends, or how different artists reveal different facets if the same subject?

[Anonymous No.6794393]

>>6794322
>Could a parallel be drawn with Mendellsohn's ideas? So, our aesthetic experience of individual works is enhanced by our experience of other works in the same tradition, e.g. seeing how they use the same techniques to different ends, or how different artists reveal different facets if the same subject?
This is a great question and one I'd have to think about for a while. Mendelssohn stresses the importance of harmony in his aesthetic philosophy and, to me, this seems perfectly applicable to what you're saying. Meaning that, one first looks a selection of texts in relation to each other and a specific culture. One recognizes this as harmonious and one finds pleasure in this but, upon individually reading the texts and THEN viewing the whole, one can, in reading each individual work, view the relationship with greater appreciation than before.

Now, as for appreciating the individual works more because of their relation to other works, I am not sure such a parallel can be drawn as easily, simply because Mendelssohn's theory of perfected sensate cognition hinges on the idea that the whole is what is desired and it does not necessarily suggest that knowledge of the whole contributes to a greater appreciation of an individual part. While I see no reason for this to be false, it's harder to ascribe to Mendelssohn. Very interesting post nonetheless.

Now, who you should read is Herder. This sounds exactly like something he writes in his Philosophy of History. He states that a work must be analyzed historically and in context to its influences and what it influences in order to be fully understood and appreciated. This knowledge leads to a greater harmony and pleasure within the viewer. Spinoza also says something similar in his Theological-Political Treaty, though this pointedly directed to the Bible and has less to do with aesthetic pleasure and more to do with historical accuracy. This may not be applicable, just a fun parallel to draw.

[Anonymous No.6794818]

Bump

[Anonymous No.6794830]

>>6794129
Okay so beauty is represented by freedom?

Hegel has a huge boner for freedom

[Anonymous No.6794847]

>>6793687

>loli
>disgusting

[Anonymous No.6794911]

>>6794847
Gross m8

[Anonymous No.6795609]

Final bump before surrender

[Anonymous No.6795649]

>>6794249

colors are all wonky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Gppa-8hMA

(its better if you play the paradise circus remix over it tbh)

[Anonymous No.6795654]

>>6793300
addressing question 1, I interpreted the "free play of the imagination" to be when the artist gives hints or clues and then the consumer is encouraged/made to complete the puzzle/experience/statement.
So this would rule out the blank canvas thing.

A possible problem with the "imagination" mode of art is that the consumer will conclude something that they already know and accept. I'm thinking confirmation bias here. People will be tempted to substitute their own truth for the artist's because no conclusion is offered and confirmation bias will lead people to interpret the clues/use their imagination in a way that validates their own views.

[Anonymous No.6795657]

http://www.amazon.com/Philosophies-Art-Beauty-Aesthetics-Heidegger/dp/0226348121

bumping for based aesthetics anthology

[Anonymous No.6795673]

>>6793289
I have a problem with Lessing saying that "free play of the imagination" is important because it gives the viewer pleasure. I view the viewer's pleasure as not very important next to the integrity and quality of the art.

Evaluating art based on the viewer's pleasure robs the artist of agency and discourages exploration/experimentation by artists.

[Anonymous No.6796683]

>>6793999
>What a needless attack! Those are some hot opinions! I suppose less intellectual minds such as Hegel and Kant can't quite grasp the intellect you've attained!
If you weren't so quick with this impulsive appeal to authority you would have realised I already referred to both (outdated metaphysics and morality). The enlightenments had the effect of slaying certain thinkers ideas, this is one of them.

>>6794037
>You like to play the naive utilitarian
Not at all. Ironically, such people also dismiss me as an amoral aesthete. You can both be wrong :)

I think implicitly utilitarianism reserves a place for art, because it cares about the wants of the less developed masses.

I also feel I've only cast pebbles ITT, that's because you respond like swine.

[Anonymous No.6796734]

>>6795649
bad choice of track, possibly route.

[Anonymous No.6796806]

>>6793641
Theatre too though, surely?

What were Lessing's views on the canonical Greek plays? Does he discuss whether this counts as 'bridging the gap' between poetry and painting?

[Anonymous No.6796834]

This is a really interesting thread.

In my first term at Oxford doing Classics we studied the Aeneid and the first essay we were set was entitled: "What roles do vision and viewing play in the Aeneid? Discuss with special reference to Book One and Two."

Basically, the essay called for us to examine the importance of descriptions of art within poetry (called ekphrasis ἐkφρασις) in Greek. The first description is of the murals in Dido's temple from Book 1 and the second called for us to compare Aeneid's description of Laocoon's death with the sculpture itself.

Naturally, I began my essay by quoting Lessing on the subject, who writes:
"Painting, and poetry; the former employing figures and colours in space, the latter articulating sounds in time."

I feel that this is extremely important, because the notion of 'time' completely changes the way we read something. Virgil is able to tell us the order in which we perceive things, and so, for example, he could begin by describing the snakes and then describing Laocoon and shape our thus shape our understanding through a sequential narrative. With the sculpture, it's up to the viewer to decide which order they perceive the constituent parts and I think that this is one of the most important considerations when comparing physical art and literary art.

Also important, although perhaps less relevant here, is the idea of 'focalization'. In something like the Aeneid, whenever the author is describing a piece of art, you need to consider through whose eyes the art is being perceived. For example, in Aeneid Book 1, it is through Aeneas' eyes that the murals of the Trojan war in Dido's temple are viewed and this shapes the narrative in a number of ways. For example, when Aeneas weeps when seeing the deaths of Trojans on the murals, this is because of his own personal history. Thus, whenever there are descriptions of art within literature itself it is important to consider who the 'focalizer' is, that is, through whose eyes is the art being seen.

> tl;dr: Physical art is more dependent upon the audience's own individual perceptions whereas literary art allows the author to guide the audience to a greater extent.

[Anonymous No.6796841]

What about video games, are they art?

[Anonymous No.6796848]

>>6796841
Only the ones with the cute Japanese cartoon girls.

[Anonymous No.6796857]

>>6793289
>what lessing coins as "free play of the imagination"

Also, what do you say to this, by William Blake?

[Anonymous No.6796917]

>>6795673
>Evaluating art based on the viewer's pleasure robs the artist of agency and discourages exploration/experimentation by artists.
And you aren't wrong! You and Lessing just have very differing opinions, here. For Lessing, the technical skill used in creating the work means nothing if the viewer cannot exercise his or her imagination, for he considers this integral to the viewer's experience. I find some reason to this (though I certainly do not think it is absolutely necessary).

For instance, I think Lessing has a good point in that a work that gives the viewer a certain degree of initial surprise or shock or wonder, but fails to sustain this wonder, may fail. For the viewer's imagination is never stimulated; the viewer grows tired of the work.

Now, this is not a matter of technical skill or whether or not the artist feels that he even needs to please others; this is a way in which Lessing can critique artwork.

I see what you're saying and a lot of people would agree with you. Some people found Lessing to be much too close-minded

[Anonymous No.6796933]

>>6796806
Exactly. Lessing adored theatre and often suggested that it was the missing link between the two mediums. Unfortunately, I am away from home and I can't consult the text but I know the he had a serious issue with the theatre that was being conducted during the time of writing. His taste in theatre, just like his taste in poetry/painting, centered around the Greeks. He also had an affinity for Shakespeare. I believe he felt that theatre was becoming too pompous and too flashy and that the execution was straying from the heart of the original medium.

He did, of course, still address the limitations and I believe he said that, because the viewer is restricted to a single viewing point, the scene could not flesh out like it could on the page.

[Anonymous No.6796943]

>>6796834
Exactly.

Also, did you ever come across the problem with the sons (well, not really a problem) of how the statue is depicted in terms in relation to the text? For instance, in the text it is suggested that the sons are taken into the sea and devoured and THEN Laocoön was attacked. In the sculpture, however, all three are together. This was another limitation Lessing ascribed to sculpture (and what that you mentioned) in that it must, to a certain degree, hold the hand of the viewer and show, without telling, the subject matter. Also, it allowed for the grief of the father to be better captured because the sons are being strangled before his eyes.

I always found this particular limitation of sculpture to be an interesting observation on Lessing's part

[Anonymous No.6796948]

>>6796857
In terms of how he altered the scene?

[Anonymous No.6797786]

>>6796943
Yea I remember reading a really good article (sadly can't remember now) about that exact issue with the sons and how sculpture and poetry call for different depictions of the same event. It really is a fascinating topic. I've been interested in aesthetics ever since reading Joyce's portrait of an artist and so I find my essay on Laocoon one of the most interesting I've ever had to write.

[Anonymous No.6798153]

>>6796841
No, they as a medium are born during Capitalism and from organic Kultur. If they were art at any point, it is over now, since they've become too detached from their genesis and the makers are in it for the art of making video games themselfs.

>inb4 death of the author

This is an classic german aesthetics thread, not a post-structuralist one.