In his article, Edwards briefly alludes to a connection between “expression” and Romanticism. What linked these two movements? What sort of view of class did each implicitly promote?
The connection between expressionism and romanticism is the suggestion that an artist protrudes during performance. The romantic aesthetics of art were in the artist’s feelings and sensations, while the expression of a piece of art could only suggest such emotions. Walter Jackson Bate claimed that “expression strives, through suggestion, to disclose what is beyond the formal quality of the object. . . The romantic employment of expression seeks to awaken an inference or feeling of the undetermined or undeclared.(1)” Through expression, an artist produced more of an organic, original, individual performance that was an expression of his/her soul.
The expression of art was something that most people agreed was best achieved through classroom teaching and public lectures. Hiram Corson’s motifs of romantic theory suggested that students study poems as complete organisms in order to cultivate the student’s imagination through the emotional associations of the poetry (2). The training of one’s soul to protrude pure, emotional expression through poetry was inherently romantic because of the transcendence of the ideal over its form.
The ability to study vocal expression inherently created a class division. Only the moderately wealthy would be able to study this, because only the moderately wealthy people found honor in the art of expression. The use of artistic expression found its niche in formal performances that limited the audience by the price of admission.
I view the art of expression in a very similar way today as when it was first realized and taught. The ability of an aspiring artist to be taught how to focus on and protrude emotional expression was and is a quality that is not available to everyone. Some in our society are just as fine not needing or wanting to know proper methods of expression, because they won’t use them. Others find these qualities necessary for public speaking events and traditional performances.
These are the sources I cited from:
ReplyDelete(1) Walter Jackson Bate. From Classic to Romantic: Premises of Taste in Eighteenth-Century England. (1946; rpt. New York: Harper and Bros., 1961) p. 156.
(2) Hiram Corson. A History of Modern Criticism; 1750-1950, III: The Age of Transition (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1965), p. 152.
Lane, I appreciate the multitude of information provided in your essay. However, there is on line in the last paragraph that sticks with me; "only the moderately wealthy found honor in the art of expression." While I agree that the moderately wealthy had the financial means to study expression I disagree that they were the only ones who found honor in the art of expression. Those within the lower class without the means to study expression may have found honor in this art form as well as had an interest in expression. Simply because they were unable to study expression does not equate to disapproval or lack of interest in expression.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, pal, but I'm still giggling about the thought of actors "protruding" during performances. You may want to find a different way to phrase that idea for the less mature of us readers...
ReplyDeleteOther than that, I'd like to see you clarify your position through use of examples. I think you could be bolder in stating your position too. You touch on class differences, but don't elaborate. What are the political implications for then and today?