Appreciation

A. G. Maisey · 1st August 2010, 07:08 AM

Kai Wee, you have precisely identified the point I have been trying to make.

I have not been trying to establish how or why we appreciate the various arts, but rather, the factors that are at play in our own minds when we involve ourselves in some way in one form of art or another, and the effects upon us of that involvement.

I am using the word "involvement", because it could be purchase, or viewing, or listening or anything at all that requires us to become involved in the art work.

The "story" is always present, and it has been composed from all our previous experience.

Thus, we never, ever can appreciate a work of art in the absence of that story, because it is our experience that provides the tools (mental) by which we measure the work.

The fellow who rejected the "lost van Gogh" for his guest room lacked a story. He had not been exposed to van Gogh, could not recognise the style, had nothing by which to measure it, and labeled it as just a bit too primitive for his taste.

David has outlined for us his own position in respect of van Gogh, and this style. David is a mature, perceptive and educated man with a broad appreciation of art. It is simply not possible that he could reach his age with no exposure to van Gogh. That exposure has created David's "story". His experience, and this experience has resulted in the generation of a liking for the work of van Gogh. Thus, if he sees something in a similar style he will still like it, whether it is by van Gogh or not.

David's return to the Josh Bell example is, I feel, precisely accurate as a demonstration of the way in which the "story" affects the perception. In the right place at the right time we have one expectation and a matching perception. In a different place at a different time the expectation differs as does the perception.

Each of us has our own story, and that story is what directs our expectation, perception, and ultimately our appreciation.

Incidentally, I'm very partial to van Gogh's work; when I raise my eyes above the top of my computer monitor I see "Starry Night" hanging on the wall.

However, my taste has not always been thus. Forty years ago I had a very great dislike of all post impressionists, it is only as I have become older that my tastes have changed and I now can see things that I could not see when I was younger. I now have a different story to the one I had some years back.

I do not believe there is any "right" answer, or equally any "wrong" answer to this subject under discussion. What interests me is the perhaps different ways in which each of us may consider this question.

1st August 2010, 07:08 AM	#10
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,799	Kai Wee, you have precisely identified the point I have been trying to make. I have not been trying to establish how or why we appreciate the various arts, but rather, the factors that are at play in our own minds when we involve ourselves in some way in one form of art or another, and the effects upon us of that involvement. I am using the word "involvement", because it could be purchase, or viewing, or listening or anything at all that requires us to become involved in the art work. The "story" is always present, and it has been composed from all our previous experience. Thus, we never, ever can appreciate a work of art in the absence of that story, because it is our experience that provides the tools (mental) by which we measure the work. The fellow who rejected the "lost van Gogh" for his guest room lacked a story. He had not been exposed to van Gogh, could not recognise the style, had nothing by which to measure it, and labeled it as just a bit too primitive for his taste. David has outlined for us his own position in respect of van Gogh, and this style. David is a mature, perceptive and educated man with a broad appreciation of art. It is simply not possible that he could reach his age with no exposure to van Gogh. That exposure has created David's "story". His experience, and this experience has resulted in the generation of a liking for the work of van Gogh. Thus, if he sees something in a similar style he will still like it, whether it is by van Gogh or not. David's return to the Josh Bell example is, I feel, precisely accurate as a demonstration of the way in which the "story" affects the perception. In the right place at the right time we have one expectation and a matching perception. In a different place at a different time the expectation differs as does the perception. Each of us has our own story, and that story is what directs our expectation, perception, and ultimately our appreciation. Incidentally, I'm very partial to van Gogh's work; when I raise my eyes above the top of my computer monitor I see "Starry Night" hanging on the wall. However, my taste has not always been thus. Forty years ago I had a very great dislike of all post impressionists, it is only as I have become older that my tastes have changed and I now can see things that I could not see when I was younger. I now have a different story to the one I had some years back. I do not believe there is any "right" answer, or equally any "wrong" answer to this subject under discussion. What interests me is the perhaps different ways in which each of us may consider this question.