Why is it silly, if it makes our brain and body feel spiritually more complete and enriched than before the experience? You are confusing Satisfaction and Pleasure resonated by art with satisfaction and pleasure we get from ice cream. Boris Shoshensky
-- "Derek Allan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think the idea that art 'satisfies' is silly anyway. It is linked to the idea that art exists merely to be a source of 'pleasure'. Who but the stereotype 'aesthete' thinks that any longer? DA On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One reason why this topic is so difficult to discuss --- is that it's usually > not clear just who is being satisfied. > > So... when William writes: > > "I think the aesthetic rush one gets from "abstraction" etc etc"--- > we might wonder -- to which *one* is he referring ? > > Himself ? > > Anyone ? > > > Or --- one who is especially perceptive/sensitive/well-educated/whatever ? > > > No one really wants to focus on her own, personal satisfaction -- because, how > solipsistic is that! (although -- I wish more posters would -- since I find > that sort of the comment to often be the most valuable) > > And no one here can claim any expertise in sociological or psychological > research -- so we're not really qualified to comment on what most people or > any people are feeling. > > But -- it's also quite problematic to stick one's neck out -- and make > assertions about what the best feelers should be feeling. How arrogant is > that! > > And so - the best strategy is to avoid all three approaches -- by conflating > them all at once. > > > **** > > And now -- for your entertainment -- I offer this journalistic response to > "abstract art" -- from back in the day (1915) when it was considered new > rather than canonically approved: (the writer is Gene Morgan, of the Chicago > Daily News) > > > "Imagine a picture which looks like nothing, yet everything, and which is > entitled "Michigan Avenue between Adams Street and 5 O'clock" At first glance > you might think it was a soup can in a heavy blizzard. A second glance would > almost convince you that it was J.P.McEvoy's new car embracing a barber's pole > with its front wheels. > > You see, you can never tell what a futurist painting represents. Thats where > the fun comes in. > > Generally, it represents its title like a congressman represents his > consitits. > > A futurist painting presents not ideas, but thought harmonies, soul tones and > notes sounded by the vibrant emotions (It isn't every day you read stuff like > that) > > The harmonies conveyed by these paintings are various. Each painting is an > orchestra in itself. > > One picture may be entitled "Golf Lynx calling its mate" You look at the > picture and then you think you're hearing a fife and drum corps passing a > sawmill. > > Another painting is named "The Furniture Mover's Lament". You don't see any > furniture, but you think you hear a piano being assaulted by a cabaret artist > who has just been fed meat. Still another masterpiece in a gold frame is > entitled "Silent prayer" It looks like a big squidge of yellow paint, but it > listens like a circus band leading the second > division of the parade, with the steam calliope whistling for coal around the > corner." > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Planning for retirement? Click for free information on 401(k) plans. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijlfGveDCakIGXU3ApLuo6ZQX > sRQYauz5u40IfP8lrOyRy3eE/ > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
