I think this kind of thing (below) is just games with words - verbiage. Like William's claim that the beauty of Goya's late paintings is in the absence of beauty, or whatever exactly it was.
The basic question is: do we want words in art criticism and aesthetics to mean something or do we not? If we are happy just to play games with words, then why not go the whole hog and call Goya's 'Saturn' (eg) pretty or elegant or joyous or funny or something of that ilk, and when anyone questions us, we can just reply (with a suitably condescending air): "Well, it's just something Felt" (as per below), or 'Well, its prettiness is in the absence of prettiness' etc, as per William. It's the kind of thing that gives art criticism and aesthetics a bad name. What intelligent person would bother with a field of study in which words can be made to mean anything the writer chooses them to mean - and can simply dismiss objections on the grounds that the 'presence is in the absence' or 'you just have to feel it' or something equally feeble? Art deserves to be a subject of serious study and reflection. Not an excuse for waffle. Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:28 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In a message dated 4/28/08 9:26:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > Derek, this is what D. H. Lawrence would tell you: > > "Beauty is an experience, nothing else. It is not a fixed pattern or an > > arrangement of features. It is something Felt, a glow or a communicated > > sense > > of fineness. What ails us is that our sense of beauty is so bruised and > > blunted, we miss all the best." > > Boris Shoshensky > > > Good quote, Boris! Precisely where did he say this? > > > > ************** > Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car > listings at AOL Autos. > > (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851) > > --
