Let's suppose for argument's sake that you guys finally agreed when and how
you get your famous 'a.e.s'. Where would that leave you? Would these a.e.s
be important? Why? Just because they gave you a nice, momentary thrill
('pleasure'' to use the hallowed term).If that's all it is, why expend so much effort on it? Wouldn't it be a better use of valuable brain cells simply choose a work of art that you are sure gives you these 'a.e's' and go from there. If you decide they don't add up to much anyway, you can stop worrying. DA On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:20 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brady writes: > > "I believe the only feelings one gets directly from a WoA (or, by their > kind, paintings, sculputes, musical compositions, etc.) are aesthetic > feelings." > > 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 > any rate, MY a.e.'s -- I'll be better able to describe what I mean by > 'special'. In doing that mulling, I'm focusing on powerful experiences, > powerful in the > peculiar way that leaves me utterly comfortable calling them a.e.'s. In > the > end I should even be able to look at stuff that leaves me unmoved and say > why > that's so. I have sharp doubts I'll ever reach that "end". > > Brady also asks: > "Cheerskep, do you feel any other feeling when you watch a > > play? or is it just a long duration of an-aesthetic experiences, > > punctuated by one or, if you're lucky, two a.e.'s?" > > > See, I believe I can be "interested" by something without the moment's > engagement ever rising to the peculiar intensity I call an a.e.. I can get > very > interested in some of the discussions on this forum, but it seems > definitely a > cop-out for me to call all moments of interest "aesthetic experiences". I > feel > no > doubt in my mind that the engagement with a philosophical problem no > matter > how intense, is in some essential way different from an a.e.. Compare it > to > the difference between an olfactory and a gustatory experience. They're > much > more alike than, say, a visual and an olfactory experience, but they're > undoubtedly different. > > So, to answer your question, I can sit with some interest while watching a > play -- or some boredom, irritation, or even anger -- but though those > feelings > are all reactions to an alleged WoA, I just would not call them a.e.'s, > though > I know others on this forum would solely because they are "caused by" a > WoA. > Yes, they're all, let's momentarily call them, "within the skull" > reactions to > what I'm hearing and seeing, but they're as different from an a.e. as a > pinch > or a burn are from a pleasant skin-stroke even though those all yield > tactile > experiences. > > Brady also asks: > > > > Or, as a counterproposal, do you feel the entire viewing of a play as > > > an "aesthetic experience," punctuated by one or two moments of > > particularly intense focus? > > > Agh -- you make it hard for me by showing up the inconsistency between my > viewing and what I may say about my view. Also complicating the challenge > of > being coherent about this stuff is the fact that a.e.'s admit of degrees > of > inensity. > > I might say, "Ian Holm's LEAR yielded a great aesthetic experience, and so > does Fitzgerald's THE GREAT GATSBY." But I'd only do that because there > are so > many moments of aesthetic pleasure throughout both those works. But I know > of > no creative verbal work with a unbroken stream of continuous a.e.'s.. > And we > often read a eview of a play says the likes of, "Gret first act, bummer > second." Still, because of the layered nature of the elements of a play or > novel or > film or poem, it's difficult to be very tidy in my pronouncements. For > example, in a given scene there may be some off-target or threadbare > word-choices, or > some workaday sentences -- but the scene is so gripping throughout we end > up > saying -- What a great scene! > > And, as in many musical pieces, moments of lesser intensity are required > in > plays to allow the audience to "catch its breath", to "recharge", or to > "switch > to less exhausted taste-buds", between high intensity passages. Plays > and > films have been deservedly criticised for starting out with a scene of > too-high > intensity, because if they have no subsequent scenes to match the opening > moment, the play will seem to "go downhill" from there. Directors will > often > advise actors to tone down their performance early on, or else they will > have > "nowhere to go". > > All of which, I admit, shows that in addition to attending to each moment, > we > do consider the play "as a whole". I spoke of the play's "set-up". Chekhov > said if you have a gun hanging on the wall in act one, you bettr have it > fired > by play's end. The obverse is also true: You mustn't have someone pulling > out > a > gun at the climax unless you have already sneaked into the set-up the > existence of a gun in the house. > > In other words, each part of a play is likely to have an influence on how > a > later part is received, or on the way an early part is reinterpreted. > > Still, I feel none of this fatally contradicts my assertion that the > "thrill" > is not continuous. > > > > > ************** > 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
