Responses embedded:
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Beauty? I think not!
Mike said>> Art is the intentional communication of an aesthetic experience.
Do you mean that an a.e. must occur? In other words, the mere intention to
cause one in a contemplator is not enough -- it has to "work"?
Mike: I do not require an actual a.e., only a potential a.e. Maybe people
will have an aesthetic experience, maybe not. When a piece is intended to
generate an aesthetic experience, but for all known experiencers it does
not, we might call that a failed piece of art.
And: Suppose someone creates a painting, but hasn't shown it to anyone
yet.
Unless we count the artist getting an a.e. alone in his studio each time
he
looks at it, would that mean it's not art yet?
Mike: A painting destroyed before the unveiling would still be art if
intended to communicate an a.e.
If we count the artist, suppose when he finishes the work, to his dismay
it
leaves him cold. So he puts it aside. A week later, someone walks into the
studio and derives an a.e. from looking at the painting. Does it at that
point
become art?
Mike: To me, it is the it is the intent, not the response, which controls.
If Pollack's "Autumn Rhythms" was an accidental piece, where he simply
framed
the drop cloth under his workspace I would not call it art. OTOH, if
someone labors over a piece for years and intends it to communicate an a.e.,
but it leaves everyone, including the artist, cold, I consider it art. Bad
art maybe, but art.
If we count the artist, my guess would be that the vast majority of works
created by a would-be artist give the creator an a.e. when he looks at it,
so
almost everything created with the intention of communicating an a.e.
would, by
your definition, be "art". Okay by you?
Mike: My approach is very inclusive. I believe our lives are filled with
objects and events that are appropriately considered art. I consider it
art, when a little boy sneaks up behind a little girl and shouts, "Boo" in
an attempt to frighten her. Is such a thing all that different than "Chucky
II"?
(To WC who asked: "Alright, please explain "intentional" "communication"
and "patterns of human behavior and understanding"
All of this suggests some measurable condition that
stands independent of art.")
"Intentional" (in this case) Production of an artifact under a plan or
design which the artist believes will result in an object which when
experienced by others will produce an a.e. (Can be specific or
non-specific, singular or complex)
"Communicate" (in this case) Production of an artifact in a manner such
that those experiencing the artifact will respond with an desired a.e. (an
artist can be a good or a poor communicator)
"patterns of human behavior and understanding" Any reasonable sociological
model which explains the relationships and interactions of a society.
"Intentional" is measurable, but only in the soft sense of asking the artist
what she intended. "Communicate" requires a comparison between the intent
of the artist and the response of the experiencer which is also soft, but is
IMO also obvious in the majority of cases. But, we do not need to beg the
question and determine whether something is "art" before we make the
assessment.
A sociological description of the way artifacts function in society is not
so much measured as it is correlated to facts.
Mike Mallory
