No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 February 2009
Theories of beauty are often divided into the objective and the subjective. I am doubtful whether a rigid distinction between the two can be maintained. It is difficult for an objective theory to assert that the impression of beauty is received quite passively, without any reaction or co-operation on the part of the subject, which is likely to be similar in the various cases.
page 116 note 1 Burke: On the Sublime and Beautiful, Part III, Section 19.
page 122 note 1 The subject has been more fully dealt with in my article in Philosophy, April 1942.
page 123 note 1 Quoted by Herbert Read: Philosophy of Modern Art, 206 & 7.
page 124 note 1 C VIII, p. 13 of translation by Havell.
page 125 note 1 A number of other theories could be quoted in support: e.g. Volkelt, System der Aestheiik, Vol. I, p. 421 et seq. (his “3rd Aesthetic norm”): Bullough, British Journal of Psychology, June 1912, “Psychical Distance as an Aesthetic Principle”: Maurron, Aesthetics and Psychology (1935): Münsterberg, The Eternal Values, pp. 204–218.
page 127 note 1 See Hanslick, Vom Musikalisch-Schonen, 132–3.
page 128 note 1 See Worringer, Abstraction and Empathy, Transl. Bullock (1953), especially 14–17 and 133–5. This work, originally published in German in 1908, has only been recently translated into English. Herbert Read, Philosophy of Modern Art, 216–220, thinks it may have actually inspired the development of Modern Abstract Art, theory to some extent preceding practice.
page 128 note 2 I. Worringer, op. cit., 28–9.