Here, Benjamin emphasizes the objective nature of artistic experience over the subjective one. In On the Program of the Coming Philosophy (1918), Benjamin differentiates between the subjectivity and the objectivity of our experience. For him, there is no experience of the absolute. That is to say, the meaning of art is not related to our personal experience. In addition, he claims that art is not about communication because communication is not essential to the appreciation of art.
A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history. Nietzsche also believes that the world has no values since there is nothing in it which might sensibly be supposed to have value. Simply put, nihilism for him has to do with the fact that all the highest values lose all its value. This implies that there is no justification whatsoever for assuming that there is
Was it they created every masterpiece they could and soon they ran out of ideas? Why is it still in practice? This skeptical question provokes most people, as a result, appropriation is understood as stealing and disagreed as a form of art. However, the disagreement of appropriation in art is not acceptable. Knowing the fact of criticism, artists continues the notion of originality and intentionally borrow the forms of art to let viewers to comprehend the image or structure in a new perspective.
Secondly, Jaroslav wants to speak the truth but he fails. The failure of language to convey meaning is an important theme in the literature of Absurdism. Language is either detached from any interpretation that can be agreed to by all characters, or it is reduced to complete gibberish. Like in the play The Bald Soprano
(AT, 113; accentuation included.) To say it in another word, he starts with the hypothesis that aesthetic experience is basically private and individual, and the objects that help to bring out this emotion we regard them as artworks. However, these are based on a precondition: the audience must be sensitive people. On the basis of what mentioned above, the next step is to figure out what are the objects or elements in common in artworks that create the so-called aesthetic emotion. From Bell’s point of view, he believes that Art has an essence.
As an interesting note, Gombrich reminds us that artists sometimes intend to convey particular message but because their work of art lacks the context, caption and code, are unable to convey it which might lead to what seems like a wrong interpretation. However, these “wrong” interpretations do not go against the artist work and hence it only “speaks against the equation of art with communication” (p. 64) which happens to be acceptable. I believe that this holds true because only by identifying different perceptions of an image can we completely exploit the potential of an
However it is when non-moral commands come to play where the DCT begins to lose its meaning. As times change and practices differ, non-moral commandments no longer have an effect and are not even practiced. An example of this can be found in the book of Leviticus “neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee” (Leviticus 19:19 KJV). The commandment states we are not allowed to wear a mix of fabrics, a claim that holds no standing today. This claim seems to have no direct sin, is not harming or disrespecting anyone or even ourselves.
However, although Hawthorne criticized the Puritans’ rigidity, he did not take the directly opposite view and embrace a life with no moral guide at all. According to critics Joyce Moss and George Wilson, Hawthorne was at least part of the transcendentalist movement, which pushed for individual freedoms and independence of thought from religious traditions (357). He believed there are no exact rules that are correct for everyone to follow in order to guarantee a solidly moral life. In fact, following someone else’s rules, Hawthorne felt, was the surest way to live a misguided life. Critic Mark Van Doren adds that Hawthorne did not believe there is no such thing as sin, but he did believe that to sin is a violation more against oneself than against God.
The myth though fails because it does not embody the whole of American society or an accurate account of history. This is prevalent in Washington Irving’s Rip Van Winkle which satirizes America’s need for a myth, having Rip embody negative aspects
However, numeric values are ineffective in describing the subjective interpretations of human emotions (Wakefield, 1995). Because individuals have unique lived experiences and their realities are based on their own perceptions, a single objective truth is unattainable; indeed,