----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Art, aesthetic experiences, and a long pass
There you sound a bit like Mallory whose position entails he'd call
"aesthetic" any experience of his whatever if someone asked him to
describe
the
experience. If we can accept as WoA's the stuff in the big New York
museums,
I've
often been left bored or cold by various objects in those places. I myself
reserve the phrase "aesthetic experience" for stuff that stirs me in
special
way. If ever I work my way through my mulling of the nature of a.e.'s --
or,
at
Mike: IMO, not every experience counts as an aesthetic experience. Our
description of an experience does not qualify that experience as an a.e. It
must be an experience we accept for the sake of the experience. What makes
an experience an a.e. is that the experience is unpacked within a special
stance. It is not what we experience, but the way we experience something
that makes it an a.e. Characteristics of that special stance include:
non-instrumental, attentiveness, appreciative, open and without purpose. It
is true that I can think of no limits to the kind of experience that would
be ineligible as an a.e. if experienced from the qualifying stance or
attitude I have described, but that does not mean that every experience is
an a.e. It just means that the nothing is disqualified as an aesthetic
object or an aesthetic response.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An aesthetic experience is an experience taken as an end in itself. It is
experience qua experience. Whenever we are asked to answer the question,
"What is it like to have this experience?" our response is an aesthetic
experience.
Ch: As I've conceded, you're entitled to say, "I CALL that an aesthetic
experience." The most anyone can do in effective opposition is to point out
inconsistencies.
Mike: I would select from opposing definitions based on pragmatic
principles. Which definition is more useful, i.e. includes the right kinds
of things, excludes the right kinds of things and so on.
Ch: But strictly speaking, it's ultimately indefensible to assert something
IS a
generic "kind". Luckily, we seldom have to be so strict in our speech. We
can
in daily life say, "That is a tiger," or, while pointing at a mouse, "That
is
not a tiger," and little harm will come of it. If we say such things to a
child, we will be welding an association between the utterance "tiger" and
the
image that comes to the mind of most people when they hear the word. That
makes
for serviceable communication as the child goes on in life.
Mike: I'm not trying to be arbitrary, but to point out that I think those
who are trying to define an a.e. based on the way is "stirs you" are looking
in the wrong place. Since different WoA will "stir" people in entirely
different ways. I consider such an approach hopeless.
Ch: I once tore up my knee playing football. People asked me the likes of,
"What's it like to be on crutches for a week?" Mallory is entitled to call
my
"experience" during the injury and while on crutches an "aesthetic
experience", but
I wouldn't.
Mike: http://westdundasphysio.ca/2007/08/sports-injuries/ contains a
photograph of an injured sports figure. I don't think the photo is great
art, but I do believe it invites an aesthetic experience. There is
considerable drama in such a scene: disappointment, tragedy, defeat, pain,
shame. Robert Mapplethorpe and Edvard Munch have both exhibited famous
works which focus on pain. Certainly pain cannot disqualify an artifact as
an aesthetic object.
Mike Mallory
