Derek's comment below is, again, based on the opinions of the least informed audiences for art and aesthetics. It is true that some people say what he claims but are those folks really in the conversation being conducted here? I don't think so. Derek frequently trivializes fellow listers' positions by finding a tiny handhold word he can grasp to compare them to the most naive opinions. > I'd like Derek to give us a good profile of the sort of people who are always making the ludicrous claims he so wisely finds silly and beneath his responsibility to correct (as a participating intellectual and thinker on matters aesthetical).
WC > My point remains. One often reads/hears people > talking about art > giving them 'satisfaction' or being 'satisfying'. I > think trivializes > the function of art. I think the same about the > idea that art is > merely a source of 'pleasure' (or 'aesthetic > pleasure' ). > > DA > ----------------------------------- > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:39 PM, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Derek, two of the reasons you're so unrewarding to > discuss things with are > > your inability to grasp the point of what the > other fellow is saying, and your > > irrepressible impulse to say nay. > > > > Look again at what I wrote. Try to see I was > focusing on why the CREATOR does > > what he does, and on his feeling as he does it. > Yes, there is a second > > satisfaction that can come to him from realizing > he has afforded people what > > you > > have called a "response to art". And I myself > don't feel that's a silly, > > valueless effect that trivializes any artist who > takes satisfaction if he does > > it. > > > > But, believe it, the first satisfaction comes > during the creating, from the > > creating, when you believe you have "nailed" it. > > > > You can't even wrap your mind around what YOU are > saying. The logic of your > > use of Van Gogh is so deranged it's breathtaking. > You believe you have made a > > rebutting thrust by citing him as a reduction ad > absurdum example, because you > > apparently think what I wrote implies I must > foolishly believe Van Gogh "went > > through years of non-recognition and poverty just > so some Sunday afternoon > > aesthete could feel a delicate pulse of 'aesthetic > pleasure' and feel > > 'satisfied'." > > > > You don't see that the example of Van Gogh doesn't > refute my point, instead > > it is marvelously consonant with my point? He > NEVER had the experience of > > knowing he had occasioned an a.e. in a "Sunday > afternoon aesthete", he never > > sold a > > painting in his life, so why would I think that > was what moved him to go on > > for years doing what he did? Exactly my point is > that the first, the primary, > > motivation in a creator is the "passion and > satisfaction" that comes during, > > and from, the act of creating. > > > > Samuel Johnson wrote, "No man but a blockhead ever > wrote, except for money." > > Again, a true "non-artist" talking about an > activity he had no personal > > experience with at all. > > > > > > > > In a message dated 6/4/08 4:15:09 PM, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > >> Interesting. But do we really think artists like > Van Gogh, Monet, > >> Cezanne and so many others went through years of > non-recognition or > >> poverty or both just so some Sunday afternoon > aesthete could feel a > >> delicate pulse of 'aesthetic pleasure' and feel > 'satisfied'. > >> > >> Yuk! > >> > >> DA > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 10:08 PM, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > In a message dated 6/4/08 3:00:14 PM, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >> > > >> > > >> >> 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? > >> >> > >> > Spoken like a true "non-artist", someone who > has never had the experience > >> of > >> > creating the kinds of works most of us are > devoted to. > >> > > >> > Critics, sociologists, moralists, leaders of > "movements" -- they all > > would > >> > tell creators what they "ought" to be doing, > what their "purpose" should > >> be, > >> > what their "function" is. Luckily, worthy > creative passion and > >> satisfaction is > >> > deaf to all that. > >> > > > > > > ************** > > Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch > "Cooking with > > Tyler Florence" on AOL Food. > > > (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?& > > NCID=aolfod00030000000002) > > > > > > > > -- > Derek Allan > http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
