EPISODE TRANSCRIPT
Feeling and Form: A Theory of Art (Susanne Langer)
Automatically transcribed from the episode audio. Some words and names may be inaccurate.
Listen to the episodeDownload textDownload captions
Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Today, we are taking a really big dive into the philosophical architecture of art, all driven by a promise that was made way back in 1942. We're looking at Suzanne K. Langer's huge work, Feeling and Form, which came out in 1953. Right. And for decades before this, aesthetics felt kind of trapped, didn't it? It was all these endless debates about subjective taste and, you know, fleeting emotions. It really was. And Langer just steps in with this. This really radical proposal. She says, let's treat art with the same intellectual rigor we apply to science.
How does she even propose to do that? By analyzing its structure as a non -discursive symbolic system. That's the core of her genius. So this builds on her earlier work, Philosophy in a New Key. Exactly. In that book, she laid out the whole framework for understanding how language and logic, what she called discursive symbolism, how that structures our scientific and everyday thought. And feeling and form is the follow -up. The fulfillment of the promise. It is. It's her attempt to find the equivalent framework for art. She argues that art isn't just about decoration or entertainment. It's a form of knowledge. It's a system for articulating what language can't.
And what is that exactly? The subjective reality of human feeling. The whole goal is to build a complete, systematic critique of art that reveals its own unique logic. And that logic is... For her, the logic of sentience itself. Okay, but before she can even begin to lay that foundation, she has to do some serious cleanup work first. Oh, absolutely. She talks about how professional philosophy had turned the key terms of aesthetics into what she calls a semantic battlefield. A semantic battlefield. I like that. So if she's going to build this massive theory on the idea of a symbol, she first needs to define it. and define it rigidly. Because everyone else was using the term to mean just about anything and everything. The difficulty comes from that sheer range of usage. I mean, she points out the chaos surrounding just that one word, symbol. She gives examples, right? She does. You have someone like Cecil Day -Lewis in his work on the poetic image who defines a symbol very narrowly. For him, it's an assigned symbol, basically a sign with a fixed conventional meaning, one to one. Like a stop sign. Exactly. But then you have philosophers like R .G. Collingwood, who goes to the complete opposite extreme. He stretches the term language to cover pretty much every expressive form, religious icons, rituals, art. So he makes language really broad. Incredibly broad. Yeah. But then, funnily enough, he limits the word symbol to just those deliberately chosen fixed signs. Like in symbolic logic. So on one side, symbol is way too narrow.
It's just a fixed sign. And on the other, the whole idea of language is so broad it becomes, well, almost meaningless. Right. It covers everything from tying your shoe to writing a symphony. And if the term can mean everything from a simple traffic sign to some, you know, vague, honorific concept of infinite suggestiveness, as some critics were implying. Then Langer's entire project is dead in the water before it even starts. Precisely. To build a workable theory. She needs a concept that is both abstract enough and applicable across all these different mediums. And this leads to the definition that becomes the absolute bedrock for feeling and form. And it is so profound in its simplicity, she says. A symbol is any device whereby we are enabled to make an abstraction.
Okay, let's just sit with that for a second because that feels really important. A device whereby we're enabled to make an abstraction. So a symbol is fundamentally a cognitive tool. It's not just expressing an emotion or some fixed card. It's a mechanism for separating a concept, an abstraction, from its physical reality. Which then allows us to manipulate and understand that concept intellectually. And that's what lets her treat art as a genuine carrier of meaning, but a meaning that's distinct from language. Yes. That abstraction is... the whole key. Because if art is a device for abstraction, it means the art object itself, a painting, a poem, whatever it is, is fundamentally performing an intellectual function. It's giving us a concept of feeling that we can contemplate outside of the immediate urgency of our own personal emotional turmoil. Exactly. You get to look at the form of the feeling, not just be swamped by it. So our mission for this deep dive is to follow that very rigorous path. We're going to trace her argument chapter by chapter, looking at how she systematically develops this idea of the art symbol. And we'll try to connect these insights across philosophy, psychology, and the history of the specific arts to see how she really does build a complete unified theory of what art means. Okay, let's begin with that philosophical setup in chapter one. She titles it The Measure of Ideas, and she kicks it off with an attack on what she calls the fallacy of obvious abstraction.
What is that trap she's identifying? The trap is that philosophers, when they look at art, they tend to start with the easiest, most generalized concepts that common language gives us. Beauty, value, culture, pleasure. Things everyone agrees are involved in art. Involved, yeah. But they're way too general to serve as systematic descriptive terms. You can't build a science on them. And she has this great analogy from ancient philosophy to really drive this point home. It's a wonderful one. She says starting with generalities like beauty or value is just like how the early Greek nature philosophers started their physics with elementary qualities like wetness or dryness.
You can classify things that way, sure. The sea is wet, the desert is dry. But those general qualities in and of themselves, they give you absolutely no mechanism for building a rigorous science. They don't explain anything. So general qualities yield no physics. And Langer's point is that abstract qualities like beauty yield no serious art theory. Precisely. She contrasts these amorphous terms with concepts that actually work in science like mass or time or location. And why do they work? Because they have a measurable unit. And they can be combined in definite proportionate ways. We can't define a unit of beauty or combine it scientifically with a unit of value. So if philosophical progress doesn't happen by wrestling with these big, obvious generalities, how does she say it actually happens? By addressing highly specific but profoundly structural questions of meaning. She makes us look at the history of how we've actually made intellectual progress.
Right, like in mathematics. Think about it. Nobody solved all of math at once. Progress came from asking these really specific questions like, what is the meaning of the square root of minus two in our number system? Or in physics, what's the meaning of cosmic simultaneity? And these are not general questions about the nature of the universe. They're very specialized, almost technical questions. But answering them forces a complete rethink of everything. It demands a complete reconstruction of your foundational notions. Defining the square root of minus two wasn't just some technical fix. It forced the development of a whole theory of mathematical series and the concept of complex numbers. And defining simultaneity led Einstein to completely reconstruct our entire understanding of space and time. Langer's argument is that aesthetics has to operate in the exact same way. So art theory shouldn't be chasing after some grand notion of the beautiful. It should be asking these really targeted questions. Yeah. Questions like... What exactly is expressed in architectural space? Or is a musical performance a creative generative act? Questions that are specific enough to force you to give complex, rigorous, and systematic answers. And that shifts the whole focus. It moves it away from subjective reaction, I like this painting, to the objective structure of the artistic work itself. It moves aesthetics away from being just a classification of pleasant feelings and puts it right into epistemology.
The analysis of how meaning -specific structural meaning is inherent in the forms that we create. That's the foundation for her whole system. And this rigor. is what allows her then, in Chapter 2, Paradoxes, to really dissect the history of aesthetic failures. She identifies six dominant ideas that have just been circling the drain for two centuries. Yes. These six ideas are the core concepts critics just keep coming back to. Taste, emotion, form, representation, immediacy, and illusion. And Langer shows that when you try to develop these ideas in isolation, they just inevitably clash or defeat themselves. For instance, you take the concept of immediacy.
That direct, intuitive, unanalyzed feeling you get from a work of art. Right, that aha moment. That fits beautifully with theories that are centered on taste or emotion. But historically, critics found it almost impossible to reconcile that direct feeling with the structured rigor of form. They saw structure as intellectual and form as something that gets in the way of that immediate feeling. And to make it all even more complicated, she notes this fundamental division in aesthetic theory. The perspective of the author versus the perspective of the spectator. The spectator's view, art as impression, that's the more common one, right? It asks what the art means to us, the people looking at it. Yes, and that tends to lead to psychological studies of reaction. You end up just tabulating the effects of art on a viewer. Whereas the author's perspective, art as expression, is where she thinks the more fertile philosophical ground is. Absolutely.
It asks what moves the artist to create the work. and how that act of expression is structured. I mean, just as the most interesting philosophy of science comes from the problem scientists actually face in the lab. The most vital issues in the philosophy of art come from the creative challenges in the studio. Exactly. And those six dominant ideas look completely different depending on which side you're on. Take emotion, for instance. From the author's side, it's the source of the work. But from the spectator's side, it's the effect the work has on you. And if you only take that impressionist view, you risk reducing art analysis to just laboratory psychology, you know, measuring heart rates and galvanic skin response rather than looking at the art object itself. This all leads to the key paradox she wants to solve, the tendency of these leading ideas to just defeat themselves.
Right. A critic develops one idea, say the idea of form, and then it seems to totally contradict another essential element like emotion. And so they just give up. They accept the clash as some kind of ultimate paradox. When for Langer, that is exactly where the real philosophical inquiry should begin. Her whole goal is to resolve these clashes by giving us a unified theory that explains why form and illusion or emotion and structure absolutely have to coexist. Which brings us to chapter three, the symbol of feeling. This is where she lays out that unified theory, the core hypothesis. And the hypothesis is so simple, but so powerful. Significant form, which really has significance, is the essence of every art.
The unity of the arts isn't in their materials or their techniques. I mean, paint and sound waves are completely different things. The unity is in the singularity of their characteristic import. Art carries meaning, and that meaning is structural. And to get that, you have to remember the distinction she made earlier. Discursive versus non -discursive forms. We use discursive forms like language every single day. Right. Discursive symbols are the ones that rely on a one -to -one correlation between parts. Words and concepts correspond directly. They have fixed, conventional meanings. And you can combine them according to grammar and logic to make complex propositions. The cat is on the mat. The meaning is clear and built from the parts. Exactly. A sentence articulates a proposition automatically based on those fixed rules. But the art symbol is different. It's articulated. It has structure and parts. But it's profoundly non -discursive.
It possesses import. It's meaningful. But it doesn't have a conventional reference or fixed meanings for its components. The significance isn't logically discriminated. It's felt as a quality that belongs to the form itself. So a musical passage doesn't translate into a fixed sentence. No. It embodies a structure of feeling that you perceive directly. I think that's the point we really need to get across. A non -discursive symbol doesn't tell you about a feeling. It gives you the form of the feeling. Yes. It models the dynamic patterns of human sentience. The tension, the release, the buildup, and the resolution.
It shows you what feeling feels like. And this clarity is what lets her then critique what she calls the aesthetic experience cult that was popular in the early 20th century. The one championed by thinkers like H .S. Langefeld and David Prahl. Their whole idea was that to truly appreciate art, you had to achieve this sort of high -minded, rare, almost artificial state of being, the aesthetic attitude. You had to be totally absorbed in the art and consciously reject all of your real -world interests and concerns. So you couldn't be thinking about your grocery list or whether your chair was comfortable? No. They argued that because art appreciation was so sophisticated and so easily polluted by practical concerns, real art was reserved only for this highly cultured elite who could get into that pure state of mind. Prowl even admits that total aesthetic absorption is rare. So on this point, Lehner actually agrees more with the pragmatists like John Dewey. She does. Dewey saw art as natural, robust, fundamental to human experience, not some fragile little flower for the elite. But she doesn't go all the way with them. No. She argues that the pragmatists are a bit blinded by their biological premises.
They often see art only in relation to behavior or pleasure or social function. But for her, art is robust for a different reason. its robustness comes not from biology but from its uniquely human symbolic function art is fundamental to human cognition because it's how we formulate feeling which is essential to consciousness itself and this distinction between just arranging things and actually creating something leads her to justify using one of the biggest words in art creation yes when an artist is working they're not just arranging materials that are already there They apply technique to create expressive form, the symbol of sentience. A simple artifact is just an arrangement of factors. But in a work of art, something entirely new emerges from that arrangement of materials. The tones, the colors, the words, something that was not there before.
And that new entity is the symbol of sentience. So it's not just a reflection of how the artist was feeling that day. It's the conceptual birth of a dynamic form that holds abstract emotional meaning. And that's why creation is the right word. It elevates the act of making art from just being a craft to being a truly generative, intellectual, and philosophical act. The artist doesn't copy reality. The artist formulates it. Okay, so she's established the philosophical foundation. Art is a non -discursive symbol that gives form to human feeling. Now we get to part two, where she applies this idea to each of the individual arts, detailing the unique dimension that each art form creates. And this starts in chapter four, where she defines the fundamental thing that is created in every art, the image or semblance. The image, in her sense, is the ultimate artistic creation. Right. It's something new, made for the first time out of things that are not images, paint, stone, sound waves. And crucially, this semblance exists only for perception.
It's abstracted entirely from the physical causal order of the world. It's not a new thing in the room. It's a creation that just pops into existence from the way the pigments or tones are arranged. We even see this in nature. She uses the analogy of optical illusions like rainbows or mirages. They're perfectly definite visible objects, but they're intangible. They're abstracted from physical cause and effect. She uses the German term shine to explain this. Which means mere semblance. Shine is the mechanism that estranges the artistic form from actuality, from the physical world.
It gives the art object its otherness, and that's what frees it up to express human feeling. The form has to be clearly separated from its raw materials and its literal functions before it can carry that expressive import. If you're just looking at the paint on the canvas, you aren't seeing the painting. And this abstraction is there even in the simplest, most universal decorative forms. Absolutely. The universal patterns we see across cultures, zigzags, scrolls, circles, she suggests they aren't just random design choices. They're direct projections of vital feeling into a visible shape. They offer a kind of logic of vision. A logic that conforms to the biological rhythms of life motion, rest, rhythmic unity, tension, not the abstract conceptual logic of geometry. So a simple, well -made design isn't just pleasing to the eye, it's actually expressive.
It's teaching our plastic imagination the logic of how human vitality translates into visual form. It's an elementary symbol. It carves visual elements out of chaos that line up with our biological feeling and our emotional life, our sentience. That's why a simple, successful design has what she calls living form, while a purely geometrical drawing is just inert. Okay, that brings us to the core of part two, the primary illusions specific to the great art forms. She starts with the plastic arts in chapters five and six, painting, sculpture, and architecture, and their shared primary dimension is virtual space. Virtual space. It's the primary illusion of all plastic art. It's an intangible image, totally self -contained, independent, and it has absolutely no continuity with the literal physical space that we live in. The space inside the painting does not leak out into the room. It does not. So let's break this down.
How is it achieved in painting first, where the virtual space is an illusory scene? In painting, the space is entirely visual. It's created by the use of color and shape. And Langer really emphasizes that if you take away the colors and the shapes, the space just vanishes. So it's not a pre -existing box that the artist fills up? Not at all. The way the visual elements are arranged is what brings the space into being. This is why you hear artists talk about the animation of the canvas surface. Like Edward Wadsworth saying, a picture is the animation of an inert plane surface. Or Alfred Sisley talking about the need to give life to the work. They're transforming a flat, two -dimensional surface into an active, three -dimensional virtual space. They're distributing weights and creating tensions that are only perceptible visually and psychologically, not physically.
And the shapes create this independent visual field that's complete and self -contained where the dynamics of form can express feeling. Exactly. Now in sculpture, the illusion shifts a little bit. It's the semblance of organism and it creates what she calls virtual kinetic volume. So the space is organized by the presence of a living form. Right. And you see this in the language sculptors use. They talk about inevitable form or necessary form. Langer argues these terms come directly from the feeling of vital function, that sense that an organism's structure is intrinsically tied to its purpose and its life processes. So even if you're working with dead material like wood or cold metal, the artist gives it the form of life. And that form organizes the space around it with a vitalized kinetic volume. The viewer perceives this potential for movement, this internal necessity in the object, even if it's purely abstract and doesn't represent a person at all.
Then we get to architecture, and its primary illusion seems like the hardest one to grasp because its utility, its function as a shelter, is always getting in the way of its aesthetic purpose. It is. The illusion architecture creates is the virtual place or an ethnic domain. It's a space that's articulated by the imprint of human life. feeling, and history. And it has to feel fundamentally organic. This is what architects like Louis Sullivan or Frank Lloyd Wright were getting at with their ideas of organic growth. Right. The architectural place is an illusion, an atmosphere that completely disappears if you radically alter or destroy the house, even if the geographical spot is still there. It's the human articulation of the space that creates the illusion. And there's a key principle here from the Bauhaus movement. Yes. The idea that architecture proceeds from the inside to the outside. The facade, the outer wall, is just the outer limit of a vital living system inside.
The building defines a contained ethnic domain, articulating a whole psychological and social atmosphere. So painting creates a visual scene, sculpture creates an active living form, and architecture creates a humanized world, a place for a community to feel and act. That's the feeling structure at Abstracts, and that also explains the relationship between architecture and sculpture. they merge so well because the kinetic living form of sculpture naturally supports that deeper humanizing illusion of the architectural ethnic domain okay so we've covered space now we move to the dimension of time which is the domain of music that's chapter seven and eight Langer starts by rejecting systems that try to reduce music just to its physical materials. Right, all those systems based on mathematical ratios or things like the Schillinger system or Burkhoff's aesthetic measure. They try to treat music as an exact quantifiable science based on the physics of tones. But Langer insists that while those systems are analyzing the ingredients, they're completely missing the philosophical question, which is, what is the essence of music as an art form? And for her, its essence is its primary illusion. Virtual time. The image of subjective time or what philosophers sometimes call lived time. Exactly. And just like pictorial space is purely a visual thing, musical motion, which seems so real to us, is purely semblance. It's a non -physical dynamic. Nothing is physically moving across the stage when we hear a melody rise or chords get closer together. The notes themselves are just vibrations in the air. In fact, a sustained loud note is often vibrating faster at its point of rest, like a held C note.
Musical motion is something completely different from physical displacement. It's a semblance of dynamic change that exists only in our perception. And that subjective quality is what separates musical duration from clock time. Clock time is measurable, constant. Musical time is fluid, it speeds up, it slows down, all based on its internal structure. And this brings us right to rhythm in Chapter 8. Langer's definition of rhythm is so much more than just equal divisions of time, or meter. For her, rhythm is the dynamic relation between tensions and resolutions. It's rooted in the organic rhythm of life itself.
The systolic and diastolic actions of the heart, the intake and release of breath, the rise and fall of passions. The exhaustion of one process automatically kicks off a corrective action, which then sets up new tensions by resolving the old ones. And that dynamic pattern of subjective time, that feeling of urgency, expectation, and then fulfillment, that is the commanding form of music. anything that prepares a future a regular beat a harmonic progression that leads away from the home chord a tendency tone that just has to resolve all of that creates rhythm and in doing so it's articulating the symbol of feeling directly now chapter 10 the principle of assimilation deals with hybrid forms specifically music with words and this is where she makes that famously provocative claim when a composer puts a poem to music he annihilates the poem and makes a song Which is a direct consequence of her principle that the dominant art form in a hybrid work just assimilates the material from the other. The words themselves, no matter how good they are as literature, just become a composable idea or a text. They're the initial spark for the musician's imagination. But then the music takes over and completely transforms the verbal meaning.
And she has great examples for this, like Franz Schubert using these, frankly, second -rate poems by Wilhelm Müller. The literary quality of the poem. just disappears, or it's completely redeemed by the music. It's the musical form that's in command of the work, not the words. The composers themselves seem to understand this. Oh, absolutely. Robert Schumann had that wonderful line about how the poem should lie like a bride in the minstrel's arm, free, happy, and entire. The poem has to be willing to be subsumed by the musical idea. And there's that incredible anecdote from Mozart about his opera, The Abduction from the Surreal.
He wrote to his father about the libretto. And he admits the poetry wasn't great. But he loved it. And he loved it precisely because it fits so well with the musical ideas that were already buzzing around in his head. For a composer, a good text is simply one that can be transformed into music. And Mozart also insisted that the music has to maintain its own artistic integrity, even in moments of intense emotion. He said passions, whether they're violent or not, must never be expressed to the point of disgust. The music, even in the most terrifying situation, must always remain music. So the use of, say, rapid violins to suggest rage or a heart beating has to be assimilated into the musical structure. It can't just be an imitation of noise. It can't be an undramatized expression of self. It has to serve the art. OK, let's shift gears now to chapters 11 and 12, which focus on dance. This is an art form that's often misunderstood, right? People call it music made visible or just an art of space. And Langer says that's completely wrong.
She defined its primary illusion as virtual powers, the semblance of concentrated living force. And its basic abstraction is virtual gesture. Right. In our real lives, a gesture is symptomatic. It reveals our momentary desires or what we intend to do. But in dance. gesture becomes symbolic. It emanates from a created personality or a psychical being, a character or force that the dancer embodies. So whether the dancer is trying to portray a character or is performing a totally abstract sequence, the source of the movement is always perceived as coming from this internal center of created life. A power source that fuels the movement. That is the virtual power. And this illusion of powers connects dance really deeply to our human experience of force and effort.
And even to mythic imagination. Our first understanding of dynamic relations comes from our own experience of effort, conflict, strength. The pre -scientific mythic view of the world is often a realm of individual living forces, what we might call the spirit world. Dance taps right into that fundamental way of thinking. It does. And this explains why the primary illusion of dance is so dominant that it can successfully assimilate all these other artistic devices. Because its basic illusion is virtual power, it can use music, space, and time for its own purposes without being derived from them. Exactly. Langer notes that a lot of very talented dancers, like Isadora Duncan, were reportedly not great judges of musical quality. but they had a perfect understanding of the rhythmic movements needed for their dance.
The music was just a tool to articulate the dynamics of the virtual power. Okay, let's move on to the final set of dimensions, chapters 13 to 16, which cover poesis or literature. Here, the poet uses discursive language, but they use it to create a non -discursive symbolic form. And that form is virtual events. The illusion literature creates is a piece of virtual history, a chain of imaginative action and feeling where those two things are still completely undivorced. This history has to feel experiential, limited only to what a human subject perceives, not objective reality. She has a really powerful example for this, a Chinese poem called A Farewell in the Evening Rain. It's a great one. The poet uses these simple common sense statements. There's rain, a bell, some sails. But everything of common sense importance is just radically left out.
The focus is entirely on this highly selective presentation of images. And that selection is the art. The physical facts just disappear. And this profound psychological event, the complex feeling of parting, is created by that artistic selection. The final line. where the rain on the river and the sails eventually merges into there are threads of water on our faces. It shows how the external atmosphere and the internal emotion have just fused. The events are crafted in a psychological mode to intensify feeling and make them more significant than actual history.
And then in chapter 15, we get the unique dimension of verbal art, the way it structures our perception as a reader. She calls it virtual memory. Literature. when we hear it or read it, creates the illusion of life in the mode as a virtual past. Actual personal history is a mess. It's fragmented. It's full of gaps. It lacks continuity. But the past, created by literature, has a unity that our actual history lacks. It's experiential and it's progressive. It feels like a single unfolding action that's complete in itself. She even analyzes how this is achieved through the artistic use of tense. There's the timeless present of science or logic, and then there's the historical present that's used in narrative to heighten the vividness.
Like in the rhyme of the ancient mariner, to make past actions feel immediate. But the most curious use is that grammatically inconsistent mixing of past and present that you see in traditional ballads. Langer argues this isn't a mistake. It's serving a crucial artistic purpose. It creates the effect of something that is both fixed in the past and immediately perceived, like it's timeless. A story that is both historical and eternally relevant. This also explains why when we're just outlining the plot of a story for someone, the non -artistic synopsis, we automatically swish to the present tense. Because in that synopsis, we're just showing the raw material, the pure plot, which she argues is essentially timeless.
We use the present tense to avoid pretending that our little summary has the same literary status as the full work of virtual memory. In Chapter 16, The Great Literary Forms, she looks at how these specialized devices then shape entire literary works. She notes how earlier forms, like the romance, introduced explicit social settings and constant character relationships, which slowed down the rapid action of the ballad and allowed for these complex intertwined plots. And that leads naturally to the modern novel. Which is the form that is uniquely suited to articulating modern life by focusing on the hazards of personality. Henry James called the novelist's job creating the illusion of felt life. And Langer warns that novels are often misjudged. People treat them as sociological or psychological commentary.
When their aim, like all art, is poetic. To formulate feeling and to make the complexities of modern subjective life intelligible. And before we leave literature, she has this surprising classification for discursive writing. Nonfiction as applied art. Right. Discursive writing essays, history, philosophy. She sees it as a really important form of applied art. Like a scientific drawing, it serves actuality. Its purpose is to communicate facts or arguments. But when it's done with mastery, it meets an artistic standard. By exploiting discursive form itself as a motif, it achieves clarity and elegance through its structure and composition. The author isn't creating events, but they're organizing items drawn from life with a real artistic formal rigor. Okay, let's move to the final art form she covers in this section, chapters 17 through 19, which is the dramatic illusion, drama. The literary mode is virtual memory. The dramatic mode is destiny.
Drama moves not toward the present, like narrative does, but toward something beyond. It deals with consequences and final commitments. Drama creates a virtual future. The action is constructed so that a whole indivisible piece of virtual history is implicit right from the start. Which generates this constant illusion of an imminent future. It's a feeling she calls form and suspense, and you feel it from the moment the curtain rises. And she identifies the two great rhythms that govern this dramatic form, the comic and the tragic. Let's start with the comic rhythm. The comic rhythm reflects the fundamental life feeling of survival. Here, destiny is presented as fortune.
A chaotic mix of random events, opportunities, and dangers. The rhythm is one of upset and recovery. The protagonist copes with the world through wit or resilience or just sheer luck. And the defining comic figure is the buffoon punch, the clown. He's the personified Elan Veedle, the indomitable living creature fending for itself. The buffoon is close to the animal world, all motion and whim and impulse. And he's essential because he builds up that comic rhythm, that essential lilt and balance and persistence of life, no matter what setbacks happen. And the form of comedy is inherently open -ended. It suggests life just goes on. Right, but the tragic rhythm reflects that darker consciousness of mortality. In tragedy, destiny is presented as fate. It's the inevitable conclusion determined by inherent human nature. Because we are aware of our individual history as a passage from birth to death, the hero's life becomes a career, the realization and complete exhaustion of all his possibilities. And the action is closed, final, and passional, culminating inevitably in defeat and death. And tragedy uses dramatic exaggeration to intensify this virtual life. This is key to its social function. What function is that? The exaggeration in the action, the setting, the spectacle, lighting, music, costumes. It all serves a profound purpose. Yeah. It heightens the lure of the world. It makes the hero's life seem extraordinarily worthwhile, rich, and beautiful.
So by doing that, it makes the final defeat and death. truly awesome. It elevates mortality from just being a simple biological event to a profound shared human experience. And Langer notes that the hero's famous tragic flaw is really an artistic element. It marks the limit of his power and ensures that the action is finite and complete. So we've moved through the creation of the symbol across all the arts. In chapter 20, Langer comes back to that central philosophical question. How is the art symbol's import actually known? If it's not discursive, How does meaning get transferred without language? Her answer is through intellectual intuition. And this isn't some mystical instantaneous vision. She defines it as the most elementary cognitive process, a direct, immediate insight into relatedness. congruence, and formal significance. So all cognition of form, whether it's recognizing a square or perceiving the rhythm of a fugue, is fundamentally intuitive. It's the basic symbolic value through which we apprehend art. And she uses this idea to address a big criticism in aesthetics, what we could call the Collingwood problem. Right. R .G. Collingwood claimed that an artist can't possibly know what kind of work they're creating, a tragedy versus a comedy, before they express it. Because that would imply they knew the emotion before they formulated it in the artistic medium. But Langer refutes this. By distinguishing between the intellectual concept and the artistic envisagement, the artist doesn't start with a fully worked out academic definition of tragedy. No. Rather, the act of conception is the direct envisagement of the commanding form. And that immediately determines the general structure and the rhythmic necessity of the work. A true artist recognizes, I have an idea for a tragedy, because that foundational, closed, faded structure is already present in the intuitive conception. And this leads to a really beautiful insight about the artist's own learning process. The artist is the first recipient.
By handling their own creation, the emotive symbol, they learn the emotive possibilities of the form itself. They aren't just regurgitating their own current moods. No, they're discovering new ways of feeling through the medium. They're experiencing subjective realities they might not have even known in their personal life. As one artist told her, his personality changed under the influence of the piece he was writing, allowing him to grasp the musical idea and feel a new way. So art teaches the artist just as much as it teaches the audience. Then in chapter 21, the work in its public, she discusses the essential social role of art. And she's very clear that art's import is not commentary. Right. The artist isn't commenting on public objects or generally known types of feeling. He's showing the appearance of feeling. And this import is always held in the symbol. It's inseparable from the form. The work has to be contemplated as objective. Which is what allows the feeling it exhibits to become public and shared and to actually mold our collective sensibility. So what is that creative influence of art on our sensibility? It molds our actual life of feeling. She cites the poet Guillaume Apollinaire, who said that the order which we find in nature is only an effect of art. Art's penetration is deep because it shapes how we perceive the world. For example, the Impressionists, like Renoir, they didn't just paint what they saw. They changed how people after them visualized color and light. Art articulates human nature, our sensibility, our energy, our passions, and in doing so, it determines the very shape of our felt life. In this chapter, she also makes some really necessary distinctions that often get confused in cultural critique. The difference between entertainment and amusement, and between genius and talent. Right. Amusement is the temporary stimulus, that momentary lift of vital feeling, often what leads to laughter. And entertainment is broader. It's any activity without a direct practical aim, basically what people do with their freedom. And entertainment can be trivial, like a pastime. Or it can be really serious, satisfying, fundamental mental needs, like following a complex story or philosophizing. Art falls into that category of serious, essential entertainment.
And the distinction between the capabilities of the maker. Talent is the ability to handle ideas and achieve desired effects. It's closely linked to technique. training, muscular control, and aesthetic responsiveness. It's trainable and it's highly specialized. But genius is the power of conception. It is not just a higher degree of talent. Genius drives the engine. Exactly. Genius often compels a talented person to develop every last bit of their talent just to meet the urgency of a new idea. She gives Mussorgsky as a great example. He was technically pretty crude early in his career. He created laboriously, clumsily, imperfectly. But the sheer power of his conception, his genius, forced him to develop his talent fully. Genius provides the compelling form. Talent provides the means to execute it.
Finally, we get to the appendix, a note on the film. This was still a relatively young art form when Langer was writing, so she had to place it within her systematic framework. And she concludes that the motion picture is a separate poetic mode, totally distinct from plastic art or drama. Which is a remarkable piece of analysis. She recognized that while film uses elements of painting and theater and music, it just swallows them to serve its own primary illusion. And what is that unique illusion? Its illusion is the virtual present, which she calls the dream mode. Its basic abstraction is givenness or authenticity, that overwhelming immediacy of experience. Which relates directly to how we actually dream, where images and actions and events just are. They don't require any logical or sequential justification.
And she pincoins the exact technical device that allowed film to achieve this symbolic form. It was the moving camera. Before the moving camera, film was just photograph theater. It was restricted by the proscenium arch. But the camera's ability to shift perspective, to zoom, to cut, that divorced the screen from the stage. And by adopting the camera's perspective, the spectator is placed in the role of the dreamer you're seeing with the mind's eye. Which creates a unified, continuously passing, significant apparition. that is felt as immediate, authentic experience. The physical space of the film, unlike in plastic art, is always secondary and malleable. It comes and goes. It expands and contracts, just like space does in a dream. So the fundamental nature of film is that continuous transformation and immediacy of appearance. It presents the present as a flow of experience. Which is why it became such a powerful, pervasive art form. and one that really shaped the consciousness of the mid -20th century.
So this whole deep dive into feeling and form really reveals the true scope of Langer's achievement. She built this unified, systematic critique of all the major art forms by identifying their underlying non -discursive symbol, the expressive form. And the primary virtual dimensions they create. Virtual space, virtual time, virtual powers, and virtual history, or the virtual present. Her work successfully integrated all these elements that were often thought to be contradictory. the importance of strict form, the role of human feeling, and the necessary function of illusion.
And by showing that they are all necessary components in creating the felt life of the art symbol, she moved aesthetics out of those tired old debates about subjective taste and put it firmly into the realm of rigorous philosophical inquiry. Asserting that art is a genuine structural form of human cognition. And it's important to remember, Langer saw her work as part of a much larger ongoing intellectual project on expressive form. She was building on seminal thinkers like Ernst Casuer, who the book is dedicated to. She saw herself as completing this necessary task of unifying all these disparate aesthetic insights into one coherent, commanding philosophical system.
Which, of course, raises a really important question for us today. Langer was analyzing art forms, the novel, the tragedy, the film, that defined and molded the consciousness of previous generations. Right. The film created that sense of virtual immediacy, the virtual present. We now live in a world that is saturated with new digital media, virtual reality. Immersive gaming, personalized social feeds, which also create these incredibly powerful senses of givenness and virtual immediacy. So if the great arts fundamentally shape our capacity for feeling and for abstraction, then these new digital realms must be shaping our contemporary consciousness in ways we're only just beginning to get a handle on. So our final provocative thought for you to consider is this.
If Suzanne Langer were writing Feeling Informed today and she was moving beyond film, What primary illusion would she say is dominant in the newest, most pervasive digital art forms? Is it still the virtual present? Or has the digital world abstracted something else entirely from actuality, maybe virtual identity? Or the constant fragmented pressure of virtual connectivity to express a new definitive pattern of human sentience? Something to ponder as you navigate your own virtual worlds. Thank you for joining us for this deep dive into Suzanne Liner's feeling and form.