I'm not sure I follow all this. My point is simply this: I do not deny that (true) art elicits a specific kind of response. What I do deny is that our understanding of that response is helped one whit by calling it an aesthetic experience. In fact I think our understanding is, if anything, hindered and clouded by doing that because the term aesthetic has acquired so many different meanings, most of them misleading.
What I think happens all too often is that people are told about the notion 'aesthetic experience' and that that is what one gets from art (or maybe even nice sunsets...). Then every time they enjoy a work of art they say to themselves Ah yes, another aesthetic experience. As if that were an explanation of something and meant something clear and well understood. It isnt and it doesnt. The word aesthetic has so many overlapping and vague meanings it is next to useless these days. Almost invariably when I come across it in a discussion of art, it is clear that the writer is just using it as a crutch - an excuse to avoid mental effort. DA ----- Original Message ----- From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [spam?] Re: Taste Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 07:47:31 -0700 (PDT) > I reply that the real must be defined to the > satisfacion of those engaged in a discourse. There > must be an agreed starting point. Normally, but not > exclusively, modern thought regards the real in > scientific terms, as the real world, something > material and independent of our knowing it. But other > views have insisted that the real is our ideas of the > world even to the exclusion of any independent > material existence or way of knowing it. I suppose > there's a sizeable minority that claims the real to be > a blend of the material and our ideas of it. But as I > tried to point out, no one can make the immaterial > idea material and thus whatever ideas are or whatever > mental consciousness is, it can't be found out by > scientific means that are restricted to measuring > physical, causal properties. So we can't say what > aesthetic experience is if we insist on locating it as > we do material things, like atoms or cells. The only > way I can imagine identifying aesthetic experience is > through a make-believe (metaphorical) process by which > we pretend that ideas, experiences, consciousness, and > all mental activity (as opposed to physical brain > activity) are embodied in material form through > symbols. Thus one might say that one's aesthetic > experience in a specific case, such as the experience > of looking at a Titian painting, was "like" taking a > warm bath. Whether or not another person would embody > his or her aesthetic experience of the same Titian > painting the same way, with the same words, is > probably unlikely, but in discussion, the two Titian > observers might come to some reasonably agreeable > metaphor to symbolize their aesthetic experience, at > that time and place, etc. I presume the same > experience on another occasion would require a > different or at least altered metaphor. What remains > a problem is whether or not some metaphorical > translation of purely subjective feeling/experience > must occur even for the person involved who is not > attempting to describe it even to himself/herself. In > other words, can we know experience without > translating it from pure subjectivity to some type of > objectivity through language or any other symbol > system. I'm inclined to say yes, but in saying yes I > must believe that I can step aside from my own > consciousness and and yet remain purely subjective. > Some say that this is where we reach the limit of our > capacity; that is, there may be something to know > beyond us but we can't know it. > > So Derek, choose your weapon. What is Real? > Material, immaterial, or some blend? If you choose > material then you will find yourself in the camp of > your beloved (just kidding) but discredited > behavioralists where all human action is causally > functional and therefore predictable. If you choose > immaterial, you will be left with pure, solipistic > subjectivity, the imprisoned Idea and we have nothing > to discuss because in that case only your subjectivity > exists. If you choose a blend, you have the problem > of showing how the duality of brain-mind works, how > immaterial conscious experience, such as aesthetic > experience, arises from material brain functions*. > > *Some materialists escape this problem by insisting > that consciousness can be dispersed, or enacted like > quantum quarks or some such events and we indiviuals > share it in the same way that the universe shares its > physical energy. If so then we bridge the brain-mind > problem with a quantum consciousness. But is such > shared consciousness extended to rocks and clouds? > > WC > > > --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Before one could say whether aesthetic experience is > > real > > one would need to know what it is. (Otherwise one be > > describing something else and calling it aesthetic > > experience). To do that, one would need to know what > > the > > word 'aesthetic' means. Alas, no one seems to. Or > > rather > > everyone seems to have a different idea of what it > > means. (A > > case of Cheerskep's 'fuzziness' run riot.)
