Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Therefore, conveying an emotion cannot be the source of a... — Carmelics
    Home/Aesthetics
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→An artwork is valuable because it conveys itself, not because it conveys a particular emotion.

    Therefore, conveying an emotion cannot be the source of an artwork's value.

    Aesthetics
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Aesthetics

    Related

    Aesthetic value is not reducible to an object's effect.An artwork is valuable because it conveys itself, not because it conveys a parti...Conveying an emotion is a type of effect an artwork has on its audience.

    Similar

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Aesthetics
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    An artwork is valuable because it conveys itself, not because it conve...90%Expression of emotion is neither sufficient nor necessary for defining...86%Conveying an emotion is a type of effect an artwork has on its audienc...85%Conceptual art does not aim at having aesthetic value.82%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: hist-westphilmusic-since-1800
    View source passageHide passage
    The role of extra-musical references in the understanding of music raises the issue of whether Wittgenstein should be considered a formalist (see Ahonen 2005, and Szabados 2006; 2014). A decidedly formalist element in Wittgenstein’s aesthetics is his separation of the understanding and appreciation of music from the effect it has on us—the move is similar to Hanslick’s (see §1.6; on Wittgenstein and Hanslick, see Szabados 2014, 39–57; 94–97). Aesthetic value in general, and music’s value more

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective