|
The foregoing essays may seem to
rest on the implicit assumption
that there is only one mode of perception by which we should properly
experience works of art: namely, the synoptic comprehension of
their structure. Certainly this mode has been awarded primacy in these
pages, but it would be an error to assume it as the only possible or
even the only appropriate one. Esthetic perception depends on at least
one other mode, equally important. . . .
. The mode by which we directly perceive the sensuous medium, its primitive elements, and their closest interrelationships, is the one I wish to contrast with that of synoptic comprehension. I shall call it the mode of immediate apprehension. . . . Immediate apprehension is our response to a direct contact . . . Synoptic comprehension is . . . our realization of the form of what we have perceived . . . Of the two modes, it is the immediate that enjoys both temporal and logical priority in our perception of art. Temporal, in the sense that our appreciation of an esthetic object usually begins with our apprehension of its sensuous qualities and, especially in the case of a time-art, of its details; logical, because, in my view, enjoyment of such apprehension can lead to some measure of esthetic satisfaction whether or not it is accompanied by synoptic comprehension, and whether or not such comprehension, if achieved, finds a worthy object. On the other hand, one can, to be sure, regard pure structure esthetically, i.e. contemplate it for its own sake. But if its embodiment, from the point of view of immediate apprehension, is negative (as, for instance, a malignant tumor or its picture would be to most people), one is unlikely to derive esthetic pleasure from the structure, no matter how perfect it may be. When the embodiment is neutral, as in pure geometry, the esthetic appeal of the structure can indeed reveal itself to synoptic comprehension; but the neutrality reveals one important distinction between mathematics and art. Mathematics, unlike art, fails to respond to immediate apprehension. . The compositions that are ultimately the most satisfying—the only ones that, according to my usage, deserve the name of composition—are those that invite and reward both modes of perception. . . . the immediate mode usually precedes the synoptic in one’s approach to any work of art; in the case of music, which can be comprehended structurally only after it has been experienced in time, this is necessarily so. This does not mean, however, that immediate apprehension is merely a phase of perception that one has to get through in order to enjoy the true bliss of understanding structure. (That applies to mathematics—not to music.) The ideal hearing of a composition is one that enjoys both modes simultaneously, that savors each detail all the more for realizing its role in the form of the whole. . . .
Edward T. Cone
|