The debate continues

Joshua Reynolds embraced the rationale of Neo-classicism which was promoted as the antithesis of the decadently sensual art of Rococo. In the late 1700s, he wrote in his Discourses, "in the midst of the highest flights of fancy or imagination, reason ought to preside from first to last."



In 1808, William Blake begged to differ. He retorted, "If this is True, it is a devlish Foolish Thing to be an Artist." (Caps all Blake's)

This debate continues with Vischer (whose writing we discussed last week) and Conrad Fiedler. Contesting the prevailing sensual attitude in aesthetics that was dominant in his time, Fiedler makes an appeal to the interest of the intellect in judging works of visual art.

Although I still cannot seem to get a full grasp of the slippery term "Gestalt-formation", it appears that Fiedler is arguing against the precepts of personal and social "yardstick" which govern contemporary aesthetic experience while it serves to simultaenously obstruct comprehension/cognition of the artist's intention.

Fiedler wrote his treatise in 1876 only 3 short years after Vischer's. The latter decades of 19th century European visual culture was indeed a tumultuous period of diverse styles. The prolonged period of Romanticism was being challenged by the advocates of Realism. It confounded matters further when artists like Whistler who aligned painting with the higher construct of music adamantly defended the autonomy of his work as "art for art's sake".







Perhaps it was precisely this shifting ground that provided Hildebrand the impetus to expand Fiedler's discourse into a scientific basis for re-claiming the position of sculpture. Yet, in reading Hildbrand, his discussion of "stereoscopic vision" and "kinesthetic ideas" suggested by the "visual projection", I am reminded of another past debate on similiar theme by Leonardo and Michelangelo. The debate ensues on...

Julie