![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 1999: Re: Age of Awareness
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu) Date: 11/29/99
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.2093 Monday, 29 November 1999. From: Reg Grouse <regrouse@netspace.net.au> Date: Sunday, 28 Nov 1999 12:11:20 +1000 Subject: 10.2063 Re: Age of Awareness Comment: Re: SHK 10.2063 Re: Age of Awareness Terence Hawkes writes: >It's precisely the distinction you presuppose between an 'intellectual' >and an 'emotional response' that strikes me as dangerous as well as >mistaken. Language is not music. It has a vital discursive dimension in >which the intellect is intricately and irrevocably involved. I cannot imagine how emotional responses could be regarded as dangerous. If so we are all in danger all of the time, for it is difficult not to have emotional responses to most experiences particularly experiences of art. Language, you claim, is not music. True, but verse speaking is akin to singing without tonal range. It is this musical quality in Shakespeare's verse which I believe first attracted me to his works. I cannot see anything very dangerous in this. I think it was Shakespeare's remarkable facility with words that gave him the skill to use his genius on so many different levels. One of these levels was verse. If you are not moved by what I would call the beauty of his verse so be it, but do not deny me the joy of being moved by it. This is not to deny the value of the intellectual input. All art combines emotional and intellectual elements in varying proportions and usually what we call fine art has a higher percentage of the intellectual. Nevertheless, a work can hardly be defined as art at all if there is no appeal to the emotions. The very definition of art demands this. Reg Grouse
|
|
|||||