I am trying to pretend this discussion of sport on a philosophy of art list is not happening.
DA On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 5:19 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That was a good posting, Brady, it displayed for me both braininess and > sensibility. > > Michael wrote: > > " The sine qua non of a WoA is its fictitiousness, not its aesthetic > qualities. Those qualities and the feelings they provoke come from the > fictitious > work, they don't precede it or inform it. Works of art are made from the > outset as > fictions, as proposals and probationary things. That is, they are made > from > the outset to be what they are (painting, song, dance, story, etc.). > > "A work of art, is free from the contingencies of actual existence and can > be > anything. When I try to [consider] the connotations and references of the > pictorial subjects, what is at play is specifically the non-contingent > quality of > a WoA." > > "A work of art can be anything. A football pass can only be that." > > Recall: I deny the "existence" of a genus of work or activity, "art". My > focus here is on our experience when we contemplate a "WoA" and other > objects/events. > > Re my telling the story of Montana as Nemesis in a football game: First, > let > me report what I've been told about Joe DiMaggio as an outfielder. I've > heard > him praised for his ability to cover ground, get to balls hit where few > other > outfielders could touch them. But I've also quite separately been told > about > the marvelous form with which he did it. "He was the embodiment of grace > out > there!" He sped like a gazelle and bounded like a ballet dancer as he did > extremely difficult things while showing no effort at all. In other words, > the > accomplishment -- "He caught it! The game is over! We win!" -- was one > thing. But > sophisticated spectators who saw him convey they got something else also, > something very like an a.e. from watching him in motion. FWIW I've > received such > reports from people who hate the Yankees, and who knew enough about > DiMaggio to > despise him as a man. For them it was, "He caught it! We lost! Damn!" So > they > hated the event -- but they could not miss the grace. > > Second -- the thing about Montana throughout those three minutes was > something other than a DiMaggio-like "beauty" to his passes. Indeed, it > wasn't > anything that any of the five senses could observe directly: It was the > "drama", the > unfolding of inevitable doom, very like a theatrical experience that has > been > compelling from Sophocles to "Death of a Salesman". Fans of both teams -- > the > Bengals and the Niners -- watched, with a mounting "experience", this > near-mythic athlete. "He's going to do it. He's GOING TO DO IT!" > > But what I seem to be arguing there is that the alleged a.e. from > theatrical > drama is closer to sports than to a painting. As is the a.e. from dance. > Similarly the a.e. from music is closer to that from dance than to the one > from a > painting. And are the a.e.'s from DiMaggio and from music closer than > either > is to the a.e. from a painting? > > That's what I seem to be arguing -- without anything like a firm > "understanding" of experiences I'm inclined call "a.e.'s". > > > > > ************** > Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family > favorites at AOL Food. > > (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
