Page 228 - DENG502_PROSE

Prose

Notes 1. General Rules of Art What pleases in all times and countries
2. General Rules of Composition Avowed Patterns
3. General Rules of Beauty Established Models
4. General Principles of Approbation Uniform Sentiments
The common trait in all these formulas is that they all presume the recipient’s position rather than
any objective features of the artwork.
Exceptions Another reason why universal, abstract and mechanical rules are not possible in art is
that art allows deformities and distortions of every kind. We simply cannot regulate art if we do
not want to kill its spontaneity. The flexible rules of art do not rule out every single aberration.
Distortion is permissible in art as well as falsehood and fiction. A departure from the rules could
still yield a great artwork despite some deformities.
• These deformities are overpowered by qualities.
• Some deformities can please. In that case they are not faults.
• Some rules are a matter of inspiration.
Hume’s example of a successful artwork that includes distortions and exaggerations is Ariosto’s
Furious Orlando. From visual arts he could have cited El Greco or Alessandro Magnasco with
their overextended figures and exaggerated movements. Deformities How these artworks please
notwithstanding their fantastic sallies? Hume’s answer is that they please in spite of their
transgressions owing to some other qualities that in fact represent these rules. The pleasure arising
from these qualities must overpower the displeasure stemming from deformities, that is to say, the
negative impact of transgressions must not surpass the total tally of positive qualities.
The most Hume is ready to allow for deformities and exaggerations is that they could occur
without compromising all artistic value; inventiveness and “clarity of expression” render the
violations of rules non-important. But Hume vehemently denies that aesthetic quality could reside
in these violations themselves. According to Hume, Ariosto’s poem pleases owing to its charms
and accomplishments, not because of its imperfections and deformities.
An artwork can combine and in reality combines perfections with the components that are less
than perfect. The chart below brings a pretty exhaustive inventory of these aspects in Ariosto:
Deformity Improbable monstrous fiction Bizarre mixture of serious and comic Want of coherence
Continual interruptions. Charm Force of expression Clarity of expression Variety of inventions
Natural pictures of passion
Principle
Deformities do not please. Nobody can enjoy them. If the rules of composition are derived from
what generally pleases, then we cannot say that deformities are being enjoyed because that would
contradict the very nature of the rules extracted from pleasurable emotions (approval of object). We
can say in general: Nothing that does not please is art. In general, rules contribute to the increase of
pleasure. Rules of Art = Increase of Satisfaction On the other hand, what pleases cannot be a fault.
If Turn to Rules Decrease satisfaction Faults Faults Increase Satisfaction Aesthetic Qualities
If departures from the rules please they are not deformities. Hence art criticism must adjust its
normative judgments to what actually pleases. Therefore the fact that a supposed fault pleases
does not undermine the standing of art criticism if it acknowledges the fact. The above principles
tying taste with pleasure delineate the realm of art. This equation between pleasure and art threatens
to compromise the distinction between good and bad art since “bad art” could be very popular (take
Thomas Kinkade or Jack Vittriano). Notice, however, that Hume does not proclaim the principle
“Everything that pleases is art”; he does not say “Nothing that pleases is not art.” either.

222 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY