Frames of Mind--Ways of Seeing (And Not): An Occasion for Description

Essay by E.M. Forster
pages 146-149

1.       I think there are a lot of people who have trouble looking—and I mean really looking at a piece of art. It is hard not to let the mind wander. It is hard to prohibit your imagination from transporting you to a new scene. I believe it is important to be able to look at a piece and understand it for its visual components and effects. But I also believe that a successful work causes the viewer to feel other emotions, to grapple with ideas that are inspired by the image. After so many art history courses, I have trouble looking at a painting or sculpture and not conducting a mental visual analysis. Sometimes I wish that I had no idea what to  look for and could view art in a naïve, alien way.

2.       Both Mauron and Fry are distinguished critics of some sort. Therefore, they are the type of people whose minds do NOT wander when viewing art. I think the author, Forster, uses them to contrast his own experiences. They also serve to show that there is some fun to be had in viewing art. When they are both in the gallery, laughing and talking about what they see, it demonstrates a less-serious, less-strict side of looking at art.

3.       I was very interested in Forster’s description of Las Meninas. I was intruiged to read about his “waves” and “half-waves” that he sees when viewing the image. In his description of the masterpiece, he uses positive diction—words such as “adorable,” “party,” “casual,” and “Kodak.” For the somewhat mysterious piece with somber colors, Forster really lightens it up. He makes the reader want to see the piece for themselves to either agree or disagree with his observations.

1.       When Forster approaches a painting, if he can keep his mind from taking charge and going off on some alternate path, he first looks at the composition. He searches for some sort of diagonal that helps him get his bearing for viewing. But he is also easily distracted by the content (i.e. the dinosaur). Most often, this is what he is drawn to even before the diagonals. He also takes note of the colors, but has a hard time focusing on them unless they stand out in a dramatic sense, like the cherries that he mentions. When Fry views a painting, he makes certain to observe the composition and take note of the structural significance it has. He notes balance and scale, as well.

2.       Esthetic—“concerning or characterized by an appreciation of beauty or good taste, a philosophical theory as to what is beautiful.” I don’t believe his claim that he has no “esthetic aptitude.” I think everyone is capable of discerning what they believe to be beautiful. It is simply a matter of exercise and use. If you work on it and view art often and talk about what you see and how it makes you feel, you become more comfortable with it and further develop it. Fry, for example, is in a field which requires him to constantly judge art, undoubtedly employing his own perceptions of beauty/esthetics.

3. In response to Forster’s last claim, I agree with him. I believe that when someone chooses not to view art, the only “goal” that remains is to “not look at art.” But when someone does want to view art, when someone chooses to look, the looking opens up enumerable doors in the mind for interpretation and understanding. A good example is the artwork of Jackson Pollock (shown below). 

Jackson Pollock, No. 5, 1948.

   This is a fairly intimidating piece of art to study. Those who choose not to look at it, lose all chances of better comprehending something about it—the style in which it was made, information about the artist, the emotions evoked by the colors, etc. But for those who do not fear it, they are led to a wide range of goals. They have a multitude of ways to interpret it. They might find that they want to try painting for themselves. Or they might learn what they like and don’t like in the realm of art. But at least they are choosing to look.