1. What does this sentence mean: “men of genius are great as certain ethereal chemicals operating on the mass of neutral intellect – but they have not any individuality, any determined character” (1349)? It certainly anticipates Keats’s later claim that “the poet is the most unpoetic thing;” but what does the chemical simile add to this claim? is it not somewhat (rather Byronically) reductive to speak of genius so materialistically?
2. What’s the meaning of Keats’s comparison of the imagination to Adam’s dream (1349-1350)? He illustrates his point by describing how re-hearing a melody can revive sensations experienced when it was initially heard, but he adds that in the interim these sensations are “heightened,” improved, by the imagination even to an impossible degree, so that for instance “the singer’s face [seems] more beautiful than it was possible, and yet with the elevation of the moment you did not think so.” Is Keats right that we idealize memories, or is he just being a sanguine romantic? what’s at stake in this question? does it relate to Hazlitt’s account of gusto?
3. What’s the rationale behind Keats’s claim that “the excellence of every art is its intensity” (1350)?
4. Finally the ultimate Keatsian question: what does “negative capability” (1351) mean? Try to tease out the logic behind Keats’s examples and counter-examples: Shakespeare had it, Coleridge didn’t; it’s a matter of being “content with half-knowledge, uncertainies, mysteries, doubts” rather than “irritably reaching after fact and reason;” it is a “sense of beauty” that “obliterates all consideration.”
Paradise Lost, Book 8, ll. 452-490:
Hee ended, or I heard no more, for now
My earthly by his Heav’nly overpowerd,
Which it had long stood under, streind to the highth
In that celestial Colloquie sublime, [ 455 ]
As with an object that excels the sense,
Dazl’d and spent, sunk down, and sought repair
Of sleep, which instantly fell on me, call’d
By Nature as in aide, and clos’d mine eyes.
Mine eyes he clos’d, but op’n left the Cell [ 460 ]
Of Fancie my internal sight, by which
Abstract as in a transe methought I saw,
Though sleeping, where I lay, and saw the shape
Still glorious before whom awake I stood;
Who stooping op’nd my left side, and took [ 465 ]
From thence a Rib, with cordial spirits warme,
And Life-blood streaming fresh; wide was the wound,
But suddenly with flesh fill’d up and heal’d:
The Rib he formd and fashond with his hands;
Under his forming hands a Creature grew, [ 470 ]
Manlike, but different sex, so lovly faire,
That what seemd fair in all the World, seemd now
Mean, or in her summ’d up, in her containd
And in her looks, which from that time infus’d
Sweetness into my heart, unfelt before, [ 475 ]
And into all things from her Aire inspir’d
The spirit of love and amorous delight.
Shee disappeerd, and left me dark, I wak’d
To find her, or for ever to deplore
Her loss, and other pleasures all abjure: [ 480 ]
When out of hope, behold her, not farr off,
Such as I saw her in my dream, adornd
With what all Earth or Heaven could bestow
To make her amiable: On she came,
Led by her Heav’nly Maker, though unseen, [ 485 ]
And guided by his voice, nor uninformd
Of nuptial Sanctitie and marriage Rites:
Grace was in all her steps, Heav’n in her Eye,
In every gesture dignitie and love.
I overjoyd could not forbear aloud. [ 490 ]
romanticism 
In response to Question #2…
By claiming that the experience of art gets ever better in our memory, Keats not only implies that we idealize memories, but also states that our imagination and fantasy contribute to our experience of art, making it increasingly sensuous and intense. In other words, according to Keats, an aesthetic experience is not just dependent on the object we see or the song we hear, but rather on the way our imagination indulges in this object or song, thus fleshing it out. Keats expresses this on page 1349 when he claims he is “certain of nothing but of the … truth of the imagination” and “what the imagination sees as beauty must be truth, whether it existed before or not”. That is to say, Keats believes that the “beauty” of something – an object of art or the like – does not necessarily originate from the object itself but from the way in which our (unlimited) imagination alters it, turning it into a an experience of high “intensity” (1350).
This, I believe, stands in contrast to Hazlitt’s idea of Gusto, which also implies that art can evoke a highly sensuous, textured experience, but claims that the experience of art is dependent on the object at hand: “Gusto in art is power or passion defining any object”; “there is gusto in the coloring of Titian”, and in “Michelangelo’s forms” (757). More specifically, the “beauty” of an artistic object is contained in the object itself; according to Hazlitt, our imagination and dreams do not create or unlock the beauty of art – on the contrary, the object must provide it. This idea, however, implies that the magnitude of intensity the viewer can feel is limited to the amount of energy the object offers; the viewer is bound to feel what the art has to give, rather than contributing to the energy of the experience with his own imagination.
What’s at stake here? Well, for one, as has become obvious, Keats goes far beyond the idea of idealizing memories, making us rethink the way we perceive art, questioning whether concepts like Gusto even do art justice. Perhaps Gusto misjudges the full potential art has by missing the link between art and imagination?
For two, if Keats claims that the quality/intensity of the experience of art is so dependent on our personal imagination and vision of it, he is making a statement that art is a highly subjective and individual, rather than universal experience. This evokes questions such as: can art be universally judged as being good or bad, as having Gusto or not having Gusto, or as being pleasing or displeasing, if “truth” is “what the imagination seizes as beauty”?
excellent observations and reflections fannina! just to play devil’s advocate though let me ask you to consider why Keats is so invested in describing the undescribable if not to get us out of our merely ‘personal imagination.’ remember the poet is the most unpoetic thing. the point of the urn is that it teases us out of ourselves and speaks to other woe than ours. i’m not so sure keats is less invested in the object that hazlitt; i think his point is rather that the deepest internal truth of ourselves is final in objects outside ourselves.
In response to Question #1, this sentence refers to Keat’s belief that poet’s should act like a chemical reaction. For instance, Keats wants to chemically dissolve into his work but in order to do this he must overcome his own individuality and take part in a kind of self-sacrifice or loss of identity. Thus, his later claim that “the poet is the most unpoetic thing” refers to this loss of identity and individuality. This idea is in direct contrast to Byron, who is invested in the creation of his own poetic identity.
Yet, speaking of genius so materialistically is actually rather reductive to Keats argument because although he believes that materialism must be a kind of hyper-materialism, this simile doesn’t seem to make this distinction. Just as he believes in a hyper-reality in which the world is so real that our minds can’t deal with it (so much that it takes over our minds subliminally), there is actually something rational, logical and understandable about chemical reactions. Our minds CAN (to a certain extent) make sense of it.
In contrast to Keats, Byron doesn’t pretend to make sense of the world around him which somehow makes the underlying happiness, sadness, horror, etc more powerful. Thus, I would definitely agree that Keats is attempting to explain the poetic process while using a troubling simile that refers to genius too materialistically.
What’s the rationale behind Keats’s claim that “the excellence of every art is its intensity” (1350)?
Since Keat’s is all about this fantastical, unattainable dream, that is fantastical exactly in its unattainable quality, and when attained is hardly as satisfying as dreaming about it.
This intense quality in art is probably not in, say, the painting itself, but imagining intensity of the effort that went in to taking the fantasy in their mind and transmitting it to canvas.
And being aware that the ‘gusto’ in their mind, is hardly as vivid as the ‘gusto’ they’ve applied to the canvas.
I think the idea of negative capability has to do with the chamelon poet where the poet transcends himself to position himself into other objects. From here the poet leaves no trace behind of himself but rather subjectively enters other things. He ends up objectifying these things by not searching for fact and truth, but rather by exploring and representing the mystery and doubt of the things themselves. So objects become not these unchanging reducible things, but the poet explores this unchangeability to discover that objects are actually irreducibly ambiguous. I think keats and blake share this idea as to them it seems poetry is about its ability to explore and present the infinity of things/
What’s the rationale behind Keats’s claim that “the excellence of every art is its intensity” (1350)?
If, as we say, Keats’ goal is to portray the unattainable fantasy, then I think he would equate the success of a piece of art (a poem, painting, novel, etc.) with its intensity of that portrayal. The impossibility of attaining the situation can only be conveyed through intensity; if art has no intensity, then we aren’t attracted to the fantasy that it paints a picture of. I agree with Sasha that it can be related to the concept of gusto, in the sense that gusto is completely unjustifiable. Both the intensity that goes into the creation of a piece of art, and the intensity of emotion that it evokes in the audience, contribute to Keats’ idea of the “exercise in impossibility” (as was said in another blog entry). The more intensely, with gusto, a piece of art is created, the better it portrays that impossibility, and is therefore more successful.
In response to question #3, I read Keats’ statement to be a melange of Hazlitt’s notions of gusto, as well as his own understandings of the unattainability of art rendering its appeal. As the concept of gusto encompases the accosting of a viewer’s senses by the passionate energy imbedded in a work of art, Hazlitt can be understood to believe such pieces are complete entities which embody the aesthetic experience. Keats however, draws upon the somewhat lacking, insufficient nature of works, which subsequently sparks an artistic energy within the viewer, and transcends any physically articulated perfection. Therefore, Keats supports Hazlitt in that he feels a piece must opperate in shocking the viewer and prompting a great sensation of awe. One almost abandons established understandings of reason when experiencing the wonders of said works, instead revelling in the unique perfection they achieve. He expresses his own notion of the necessary insufficency of a piece when speaking of West’s painting, noting the aversive emotional responses it prompts to be empty, thereby failing to excite the viewer on account of this unsolved perplexity. So I feel Keats is essentially expressing that art which is able to elicit raw, natural human responses that are linked to imaginative forces, is true and commendable; and consequently, all else is void and insufficient, but not artistically so.