[Note to Derek. Don't read any further--go sulk in your tent,
listening to jazz or Mozart or a Malraux book on tape.]
On May 1, 2008, at 3:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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?
I see, in comparing a sports event to a play, the similarity of
temporal suspense. Will it work, will he catch it, etc.? It's the
heuristic principle at work the first go around, inciting you to want
to know what comes next, and it's the same in watching a play,
listening to music, or any other temporal event. And then when you
watch it later--game or play, song or dance--since you already know
what's coming next, you can attend more closely to what preceded the
end, how things led up to the completion.
Paintings and (to a large degree) sculptures are not that way at all.
They are all end-in-the-beginning, all-at-once experiences, from which
you drag out a minimal amount of temporal expectation. (Sculptures
have a bit of a time dimension, where the viewer can walk around it
and see things that cannot be seen simultaneously with other parts.)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
