Abstract
In recent decades scholars of the visual arts have demonstrated rather convincingly that aesthetic responses are largely conditioned by one’s previous experiences of art. In other words, we recognise something as artful only when we have been schooled, either formally or informally, in its techniques.1 Thus the Impressionist painters, whose artistry is immediately recognisable to modern viewers, often seemed crude or ridiculous to their contemporaries, especially to their ‘academic’ contemporaries.2 Our modern taste, though, has been trained to respond to their paintings, and we may even have been taught to see the natural world differently through their eyes. Conversely, when an artistic movement has had its day, the skills of reading its cues and interpreting its symbols can be lost, leaving the art with a distant, alien feel. Thus Egyptian art will often seem to us inscrutably formal; and the mosaics of Ravenna, which represented the height of artitic sophistication in their day, can seem naive, even simplistic, coming as they do in the wake of the great realistic achievements of the Greco-Roman tradition.3
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See Erwin Panofsky, ‘The History of Art as a Humanistic Discipline’, originally published in 1940 and reprinted in Meaning in the Visual Arts (Chicago, 1982), pp. 1–25
Sir Ernst Gombrich, Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation (2nd edn., Princeton, 1961). Panofsky discusses the ‘cultural equipment’ necessary to interpret a work of art created under an alien aesthetic (pp. 14–19), and Gombrich examines such issues as the need to ’learn to read’ unfamiliar images and the expectations that we bring to any work of art (pp. 53–62). Gombrich develops these issues extensively in the section called ’The Beholder’s Share’ (pp. 181–287).
For some early responses to the Impressionists, see Joyce Cary, Art and Reality (New York, 1958), pp. 67–70.
Quoted in Bernard L. Einbond, Samuel Johnson’s Allegory (The Hague, 1971), p. 26. I rely heavily on Einbond throughout this portion of the essay.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2002 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kaminski, T. (2002). Some Alien Qualities of Samuel Johnson’s Art. In: Clark, J., Erskine-Hill, H. (eds) Samuel Johnson in Historical Context. Studies in Modern History. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522695_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522695_10
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-42238-8
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-52269-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)