In a review of James Elkins' book, Pictures and Tears, Nigel Spivey wrote, "To cry in front of a work of art is not a sign of weakness: it is the flexing of a truly aesthetic power." Inside Pictures and Tears, Elkins discusses at length the apprehension he encountered when asking art historians to comment for his book. He asked them if they had ever "cried in response to an art work" and if they thought there might be a "link between the "knowledge" gained by crying and the knowledge--not in quotation marks--acquired by studying." (94) In other words, does learning and scholarship kill emotion? Most of the scholars he wrote to responded unambiguously with comments akin to crying having no place in the discipline of art analysis. This type of aggressive response only leads me to believe that Elkins may have hit a nerve. Who do you agree with? Does the amount of information you have on a painting affect the emotional gravity of your reaction? And if so, does art scholarship work to inhibit or amplify the viewer's pure reactions? Have you ever cried or felt a strong emotions towards a painting?
Things to consider:
20th century apathy
Neo-Romanticism
17th century Romanticism
The emotive quality of movies vs. paintings?
Religious motifs (or lack there of)
Mark Rothko
