Even your conscious thought processes are fictional, make-believe. You invent an ongoing script, as it were, of those chaotic moment to moment experiences, sorting them and inventing your nxt moment raction and action, providing yourself a basic coherence. You invent the script and then you act it out. You can test this easily. Go to the corner and prepare to cross the street. After you make it to the other side reflect on the thought processes you had, what you allowed in consciousness and what you excluded (similar acceptance and rejection may occur unconsciously too). You quickly realize that you invented a fairly succinct script, predicting what will happen as you make decisions, and ignoring a plethora of other events you might have focussed on had you other interests in mind, such as noticing what birds may be flying above. In this sense at least our processing of experiences is not unlike the "composition" in artworks. So I don't think we can isolate the coherence of composition as a distinguishing feature of art, unless we say daily life experience, the way we process it and create fictional scripts to play out, are art as well.
WC --- Derek Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Re "And that's probably why Derek challenged it -- > since even if a > Raskolnikov never existed -- the story about him > might be considered > important because something about his psychology is > felt to be very real." > > Yes exactly. > > It's arguable in fact that our everyday experiences > are so chaotic - so > formless and lacking in consistency - that, while > they may be real enough in > terms of their consequences (they affect what we > actually do), they never > possess the kind of clarity and apprehensibility > they achieve in a work of > art. So in a sense they only become real i.e. > distinct and fully described > - in a work of art. > > So, claiming that all art depends on fiction (and it > is a common enough > claim eg one well known contemporary aesthetician, > whose name I have > temporarily forgotten, argues that all art depends > on 'make believe') seems > a fairly superficial observation to me. What in the > end is 'real' in the > realm of human experience? What we encounter in > everyday life? Or the form > it takes in art? > > -- > Derek Allan > http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm > > > On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Chris Miller > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Brady's notion of "fictional" would seem to be > awkwardly replaceable by a > > phrase like "not relevant to reality claims" -- as > a sports broadcast > > would > > be("did he really catch the ball inbounds?" -- > "did the Niners really > > win?") > > > > And that's probably why Derek challenged it -- > since even if a Raskolnikov > > never existed -- the story about him might be > considered important because > > something about his psychology is felt to be very > real. > > > > Which also might account for Derek's additional > challenge: > > "I am trying to pretend this discussion of sport > on a philosophy of art > > list > > is not happening." > > > > And I also feel that there's something dreadful > about emphasizing the > > similarity between great moments in sports with > the performances of > > Shakespeare. > > > > I suppose there's no doubting that Cheerskep feels > like he has an AE with > > both > > of them -- but unless we can determine some > special quality about that > > Shakespeare AE -- well, what's the point of > telling kids to study great > > literature --- when any jackass can go to the > ballpark and have a great > > time? > > > _____________________________________________________________ > > Click to get a free auto insurance quotes from top > companies. > > > > > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijmNj8KEugM29E9wmEKphl5A8 > > > 6jZnxH47rOQIDv1WUjDC3JrO/?count=1234567890<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.ne > t/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijmNj8KEugM29E9wmEKphl5A86jZnxH47rOQIDv1WUjDC3JrO/?count=12 > 34567890> > > > > > > > > <http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm>
