{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010384215991692628, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.342105263157895, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
John Keats and the Aesthetics of Topsy‐Turvy

Critical discussion of theories of aesthetic response in the Romantic period has traditionally been eager to stress its high‐mindedness as if determined to satisfy the promise of an idealist tradition, for which in art alone man may experience the accomplishments of philosophy. This essay revisits the language of emotion as it emerges in critical response to show that it is as the Romantics come into contact with works of art that they find themselves wrestling with confused states of being that unite uncertain mental activity with visceral bodily experience. The gradual generation of an autonomous aesthetic space, through the development of the commodity of art alongside a critical language that accommodates it, did not lead to a community of calm, collected consumers but instead provoked productive confusion and palpable emotional engagement, which unsettles any neat aesthetic dualism of mind and body.