Part 4 (2/2)

An early answer to the question would have been, that the eye is so hung in its muscles as to movethe curve is felt as favorable stimulation But recent experiular, angular leaps froure The theory is therefore re for theto those earlyimitative of the form, by which we learned to know a foring to the character of suchfor a smooth continuous curved object are themselves pleasant This co experience The greater the tendency to coer the ”bodily resonance,” the nate this as syure the s which resound in us after this fashi+on, or even (with Witasek) insist on the purely ideal character of the reproduction, see character of the experience, and hence of the beauty of the object Not THAT we sympathetically reproduce (”Miterleben”), or ”feel ourselves into” a form (”Einfuhlen”), but HOW we do so, is the question

<1> GM Stratton, _Philos Studies_, xx

All that Hogarth says of the beauty of the serpentine line, as ”leading the eye a kind of chase,” is fully in har movements of the eyes those other more important motor innervations of the body But we should still have to ask, WHAT kind of chase? Sharp, broken, starting lines ht be the basis of a much ative ”The coh, unless that experience is positively, that is, favorably toned Clear or vivid seeing h Only as FAVORABLY sti up ideal reproductions, or physical imitations, of movements which in theans involved, can forms be found positively aesthetic, that is, beautiful

Moreover, we have to note here, and to eans involved are more than the eye, as has already been made plain We cannot separate eye innvervations froeneral And therefore ”the demands of the eye”

can never alone decide the question of the beauty of visual form If it were not so, the favorable stimulation combined with repose of the eye would alone make the conditions of beauty The ”demands of the eye” must be interpreted as the demands of the eye plus the demands of the motor system,--the whole psychophysical personality, in short

It is in these two principles,--”bodily resonance,” and favorable as opposed to energetic functioning,--and these alone, that we have a complete refutation of the claim made by many artists to-day, that the phrase ”demands of the eye” embodies a complete aesthetic theory The sculptor Adolph Hildebrand, in his ”Problem of Form in the Plastic Art” first set it forth as the task of the artist ”to find a form which appears to have arisen only from the demands of the eye;”<1> and this doctrine is to-day so widely held, that it th

<1> _Das Proablem der form in d bildenden Kunst_, 1897

It is the space-form, all that is seen, and not the object itself, that is the object of vision Now in viewing a plastic object near at hand, the focus of the eye ed between the nearer and further points In a more distant view, on the other hand (Hildebrand's ”Fernbild”), the contour is denoted by differences of light and shadow, but it is nevertheless perceived in a single act of acco distant, the muscles of accommodation are relaxed; the eye acts at rest The ”Fernbild” thus gives the only unified picture of the three-dimensional complex, and hence the only unity of space- values In the perception of this unity, the author holds, consists the essential pleasure which the work of art gives us

Hildebrand's treat interpretations, which have laid stress now on unity as the essential of art,<1> now on ”the joy in the complete sensuous experience of the spatial”<2> The latter seee in which Hildebrand says ”all pleasure in Fored to create this clearness for ourselves, in its being created for us, nay, even forced upon us, by the form itself”

<1> A Riehl, _Vierteljahrschr f wissenensch Philos_, xxi, xxii

<2> K Groos, _Der Aesthetische Genuss_, 1902, p 17

But supposing the first interpretation correct: supposing space-unity, conditioned by the unified and reposeful act of seeing, to be the beauty we seek--it is at once clear that the reduction of three dimensions to two does not constitute unity even for the eye alone; how much less for the motor system of the whole body, which we have seen must be involved Hildebrand's ”demands of the eye” resolves itself into the stian of accommodation A real unity even for the eye alone would have to include not only space relations in the third dimension, but relations of line and mass and color in the flat As for the ”complete sensuous experience of the spatial” (which would seem to be equivalent to Berenson's ”tactile values”), the ”clearness” of Hildebrand's sentence above quoted, it is evident that completeness of the experience does not necessarily involve the positive or pleasurable toning of the experience The distinction is that between a beautiful and a completely realistic picture

A further extension or restatement of this theory, in a recent article,<1> seeain connected with the functioning of our organs of perception (Auffassungorgane) ”We wish to be put into a fresh, lively, energetic and yet at the same time effortless activity The pleasure in form is a pleasure in this, that the conformation of the object makes possible or rather coans” But purposeful for what? For visual for clearly The element of repose, of unity, hinted at in the ”effortless” of the first sentence, disappears in the second The organs of apprehension are evidently limited to the eye alone It is not the perfect anism which is aimed at, but the coain

<1> Th A Meyer, ”Das Formprinzip des Schouen,” _Archiv f

Phil_, Bd x

Hildebrand, to return to theprimarily of sculpture, and would naturally confine himself to consideration of the plastic, which is an additional reason againstbrochure, as some have done, the foundation of an aesthetics It is rather the foundation of the sculptor's, perhaps even of the painter's technique, with reference to plastic elenificance, the demand for space-unity, based on the state of the eye in a union of rest and action, ignores all but one of the possible sources of rest and action for the eye, that of accommodation, and all the allied activities completely

On the basis of the favorable stie as pleasing the so- called quality of line But it is clear that we cannot really separate the question of quality of line froement in space The motor innervations enter with the first, and the moment we have form at all, we have space-composition also But space-composition means unity, and unity is the objective quality which ations, into aesthetic repose It is thus with the study of composition that we pass fro, to the study of the beauty of visual for what, as a ive aesthetic pleasure The primitive art of all nations shows that it has taken the direction of syht be said that this is the result of non-aesthetic influences, such as convenience of construction, technique, etc <1>It is clear thatin primitive art is due (1) to the conditions of construction, as in the for and textile patterns generally; (2) to convenience in use, as in the shapes of spears, arrows, knives, two-handled baskets or jars; (3) to the imitation of animal forms, as in the shapes of pottery, etc On the other hand, (1) a very great deal of syestions of the shape to which it is applied, as the ornaments of baskets, pottery, and all rounded objects; and (2) all distortion, disintegration, degradation of pattern- , is in the direction of geometrical symmetry The early art of all civilized nations shows the saht be said that, as there exists an instinctive tendency to iested by the syies of our bilateral organism, which is a system of double motor innervations, and thus fulfill our deanism as a whole But we should then expect that all space arrangeest motor impulses which do not correspond to the natural bilateral type, would fail to give aesthetic pleasure Such, however, is not the case Non-sye

<1> The following is adapted from the author's _Studies in Symmetry, Harvard Psych Studies_, vol i, 1902

This contradiction disappears if we are able to show that the apparently non-syement contains a hidden sye about just that bilateral type of eoed, in which one of two unequal lines of white on a black background being fixed in an upright position a certain distance froe

It was found that when two lines of different sizes were opposed, their relative positions corresponded to the relation of the arms of a balance, that is, a se one near the centre A line pointing out from the centre fitted this for in, if taken as ”light” Si depth in the third dimension were ”heavy” in the sao beyond the proof that all pleasing space- arrangements can be described in terms of mechanical balance

But as this , and no one will hts more than a short one Moreover, the eleeneous The ested by an idea had been treated as if equivalent to theline; the intrinsic interest--that is, the ideal interest--of an object insignificant in form was equated to the attractive power of a perspective, which has, presuical effect on the visual mechanism

I believe, however, that the justification of this apparent heterogeneity, and the basis for explanation, is given in the reduction of all elements to their lowest tere object and an ”interesting” object are ”heavy” for the same reason, because they call out the attention And expenditure of effort is expenditure of attention; thus, if an object on the outskirts of the field of vision requires a wide sweep of the eye to take it in, it demands the expenditure of attention, and so is felt as ”heavy” But what is ”the expenditure of attention” in physiological ter more than the measure of the motor impulses directed to the object of attention And whether the estions of ical basis

It may here be objected that our eneous, inas the line of movement But it must be said, first, that these are not felt in the body, but transferred as values of weight to points in the picture,--it is the amount and not the direction of excitement that is counted; and secondly, that even if it were not so, the suggested ht” at a particular point

From this point of view the justification of the metaphor of mechanical balance is quite clear Given two lines, the er nearer the centre, and the smaller far from it This is balanced because the spontaneous ie line equals in amount the involuntary expenditure to apprehend the small, farther one