|
Well (and this is just off the cuff), but it seems clear that there is some relation between 'natural beauty' and 'artificial beauty'. That is, we value art that reminds us of the beauty of nature. But we should probably also distinguish between the two. There are things we value in art that we wouldn't value in nature (for example, a nice turn of phrase in a poem probably doesn't have a counterpart in the natural world).
But it seems important to art that it be capable of inspiring what you refer to as an emotional reaction, and what Kant calls 'free play of the imagination'. Art, at least good art, should awake some activity of our minds, but not be designed to provoke a specific reaction (the latter would be propaganda). I'm reluctant to say that this is a 'definition' of art, since it's certainly subjective in nature, but it seems like a good way to distinguish good art from bad art.
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."
"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
|