whole thoughts, attending to the function of a word in expressing the
thought, not centrally to single word after single word.
As aspects of visual design, itself emergent out of both parts and
emergent regional properties, Beardsley lists color, which may vary in
hue, brightness, or saturation; line, which may vary in length, orientation,
or curvature; visual density; depth; rhythm (that controls the movement of
theeye);andrelativedominance(offiguresandoffigurevs.ground).^41
Aspects of sound design include duration, volume, timbre, pitch, auditory
movement, rhythm, tonality, cadential drive, melody, mode, and har-
mony.^42 Literary form involves“the concrescence of patterns”^43 of signifi-
cance and “semantical thickness”^44 achieved in a variety of ways,
including metaphor, imagery, irony, multiple relatedness of themes, point
of view, and emotive meaning. Crucially such concrescence and thickness
occur in and through relations ofsemanticelements (words with their
meanings), not in virtue of the mere shape or look of words alone. These
semantic relations themselves become a focus of attention in part for their
own sake, over and above any message they might convey. What matters
for aesthetic experience of a literary work is that webs of words-with-
meanings form such a focus for attention. (Beardsley cites with approval
Cleanth Brooks’dictum that“The language of poetry is the language of
paradox”;^45 that is, beyond any message, the verbal pattern that is its
vehicle is also a focus of attention in its own right.) Though Beardsley
does offer a theory of aesthetically significant form in literature, as in
other media of art, the form that is relevant is not merely syntactical, but
is rather an arrangement of elements with semantic or presentational
significance.
Beardsley’s remarks about the importance of visual design, sound design,
and verbal design are well confirmed in the practice of many important
working critics. For example, Michael Baxandall echoes Beardsley
in regarding paintings as objects of“intentional visual interest,”^46 where
(^41) Ibid., pp. 87–107. (^42) Ibid., pp. 87–107. (^43) Ibid., p. 128. (^44) Ibid., p. 129.
(^45) Ibid., p. 152, note 9D, citing Cleanth Brooks,“The Language of Paradox,”inThe Language
of Poetry, ed. Allen Tate (Princeton University Press, 1942), pp. 358–66, later reprinted as
chapter 1 of Brooks,The Well Wrought Urn(New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1947).
(^46) Michael Baxandall,Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures(New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 1985), p. 43.
Beauty and form 65