As much as i appreciate the diversity of theories and philosophies on what is art, some of them are just pretty speech with no real backbone. The use grandiose words and form, to convince us about art being this mystical thing, that we will never fully experience.
For as long as i can remember in the art and philosophy class we tried to categorize art with other disciplines, we tried finding guidelines and outlines, but in the end nothing really made sense. No theories were completely right, although some of them were or are hugely popular.
I understand that each theory has its flaws, that should always be evaluated, but also we have to notice the defects, we cannot just take the authors word for what he says. Tolstoy said that art's purpose is to communicate a message, and feeling from an author to a viewer. Many people agree they feel they have received a message from the author, upon reading text from Tolstoy, but in actuality, we constantly feel something, we are human beings after all.
Therefore i am sorry to conclude that Warternberg brings us theories about art, and fantasies of mad men/women. Line can be drawn between magical connections, and worldly facts.
1. Why did Wartenberg include such phantasmal theories in his text?
2.Were the most unrealistic theories more popular then the realistic ones?(in a public meaning)