Then your statement that Bouguereau is not an artist is dead?! Boris Shoshensky
-- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think the idea of taste re art is dead. Quite dead. DA ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Taste Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:05:23 GMT > 'Taste' is such a broad, fuzzy word -- both in general > usage, and as I would apply it. It can apply to orange > juice or great paintings -- it can be whimsical or a > serious judgment -- but it still captures more than the > word 'art' > > If I tell you that "there is some art in the next room" -- > all you will know about about that 'art' is that it fits > into the room. Period. Anyone can call anything 'art' for > any reason. > > But if I tell you that "there is something in the next > room that meets my taste" --- you know that some > particular person likes it. That's a very small piece of > knowledge --- but the more you eventually know about the > thing and the person -- the more valuable that small piece > of knowledge can be. > > Or not. > > Some preferences are casual, momentary, and not really > worth discussing. > > I'm only interested in what someone has in mind when > noticing that something is so special that it's worth > remembering, recommending, and maybe even subsidizing and > teaching others how to have. > > Including --- skiing (as Cheerskep has suggested) -- if > that's what someone really feels is important. How much > different is that from my fondness for Tai Chi? -- whose > value I could discuss at great length - with all kinds of > profound jargon -- but won't -- because I doubt anyone > here has had much experience with it. > > And the same thing with skiing -- or most of the other > special, positive, intense experiences that people have. > > But everyone here has read Shakespeare , listened to > Mozart, and seen the paintings of Monet, Picasso, > Rembrandt etc. --- so that's the reason why discussions of > taste tend to focus on the arts. > > And yes - I am interested what someone has in mind when > using the word 'art' -- but not the general someone -- the > hypothetical faceless person who represents common usage > and common taste. > > I am only interested in actual specific people -- whom > ,after using the word 'art' -- can then be queried about > it. > > That's the kind of discussion that interests me -- one > that's based on specific experiences of taste -- even if > it's a taste for some aesthetic theory (as long as the > taster is willing to actually defend it) > > But what doesn't interest me is discussion as some kind of > track meet -- a competition to distinguish the great > thinkers from the rest of us -- an utterly tedious > diversion -- because, unlike a real track meet - there's > no way to determine the winner -- so all we get is endless > , bitter bickering at the finish line - like the post > copied below. > > Whatever happened to the Cheer in Cheerskep ? > > > ********************************************************** > ****** > > Cheerskep wrote: > > > > When I first skied, I decided this was an experience > to remember, and I decided to subsidize my kids' having > it. Do you see my difficulty with your stated position, > Chris? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chris writes: > > "Cheerskep, I ignored 80% of your argument for why my > notion of "taste" is so > alien to what most people have in mind when they say > "Ellen has taste" because, in our discussions here, I > don't care about the common usage of any important word." > > As I said -- and you didn't respond to -- this ensures you > will not be "understood" because whenever you use a word, > what will come to people's minds > is > their notion, not yours. So, in effect, you claim you > don't care what comes to > your audience's minds when you speak or write. (I don't > believe you.) > > You go on to say you don't even care what most people have > in mind when they say the word 'art'. "The contents of > what most people have in mind is an issue > for marketing experts - and it bores me." > > Chris, this is an aesthetics forum. What most people have > in mind here with the word 'art' is not an issue for > marketing experts. And if what aestheticians > and artists have in mind with that word bores you, why are > you on this forum? > > > Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy. Philosophy requires > the ability to hold focus on an argument. Those whose > attention flags or begins to wander half-way through a > sentence or paragraph are not equipped to do this stuff. > > The sentence you begin to quote above is actually this: > "You ignored 80% of my argument for why your notion of > "taste" is so alien to what most people have > > in mind when they say "Ellen has taste" that it amounts to > extinguishing the word, executing it." > > The paragraph went on: > > "Granted, some words in our language deserve execution, > but then it behooves the executioner to come up with a > different word -- or, rather, two different words: one for > his new "concept", and another to salvage the elements in > the old majority notion that need to be preserved." > > I'm coming to believe you're not one of those who ignore > arguments, they simply escape you. You're not able to hang > in there long enough. I pointed out tha > t your concept of "taste" implies that my preference for > Velcro and zippers over buttons because of my arthritic > thumb is a matter of "taste". You didn't respond. > > But then, you never do tie your notion of taste and its > preferences to anything aesthetic. I'm with you during > that brief portion of your day when you > evidently feel there is no fact-of-the-matter about which > aesthetic preferences > are "right" or "wrong" (at other portions you convey you > do support "good"
