Re: 'The trick is to know when his questions deserve to be taken seriously.'
I am perfectly serious most of the time. For example I am perfectly serious in arguing that the very common talk - not only in everyday conversations but often in quite serious and widely read textbooks etc on aesthetics - about art being a source of 'aesthetic satisfaction' (and /or 'pleasure') is: (a) very confused - since the word aesthetic is so vague, and (b) a trivialization of art insofar as it suggests that it exists merely as a kind of refined form of titillation for the Sunday afternoon aesthete. (And yes, Boris I did mean 'Yuk !') DA -------------------------------------------------- On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:35 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I 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." > > Derek replied by stating his position that to talk about "art giving > 'satisfaction' [or] 'pleasure' (or 'aesthetic pleasure') trivializes the > function of > art," He then concludes righteously, "I'm sorry if thinking this makes me an > 'unrewarding' to discuss things with, Cheerskep. But it is my opinion. I > can't > change it just so some people will find me more rewarding." > > This is yet another instance of Derek's inability to focus on and grasp what > has just been said. At no time did I say Derek is unrewarding because of his > opinions. I said he is unrewarding because of his inabilities -- and his > impulse to reject. > > "Inability" or simply "refusal"? Or the combination? Derek has at times been > perversely interesting to argue with because it is a cerebral calisthenic to > diagnose precisely where his thinking has gone awry. Indeed, all one can do is > discern "where" -- not "why". At times it has seemed the point was simply too > difficult for him to comprehend. But at other times, the point seemed > unmistakably clear while, alas, impugning his thought-processes so damagingly > that he > was unable to accept the implications. Which is to say his "inability" perhaps > stems from a combination of his lack of comprehending power plus his inner > self's rejection of what is too awful to accept. > > In the past, there have been listers I was convinced were flatly dishonest. > Like weasel-politicians, when cornered they knew it, and nimbly scrambled to > reinterpret key words, change the subject, shift to "righteous" indignation -- > knowingly seizing any way to escape. I can't charge Derek with that. It may be > that the kind of "refusal" I am citing in him isn't voluntary, has nothing to > do with logic, probably is not even what we'd call "conscious" -- like > someone's refusal to accept that a loved one has died. > > Still, as I've said before, I think Derek can ask penetrating questions -- > albeit too often based on that impulse to say nay -- and he certainly knows > far > more about visual art than someone like me does. So I am glad he is on the > forum. The trick is to know when his questions deserve to be taken seriously. > > > > > ************** > 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
