Actually, I said all sorts of heretical things in my academic life, saving the most egregious for the group I called "deans and up" than to my peers in my department. I not only said something like that Cheerskep quotes from this list but I published similar comments. In fact, it's not heretical but more respectful to reclass art with the soft sciences than it is to leave it out in the cold, withered moonlit landscape of sentimental philosophy.
It's not a bad thing that aesthetics has grown up to occupy a significant corner of the cognitive sciences (all of them) and cultural studies. It's a good thing. Beauty still has a place, too. What we used to call art is either homeless or wonderfully free, take your pick. Me and many others are still painting anyway simply as another way to examine and symbolize experience in the world. We painters recognize the constraints of culture and cognitive patterns, as far as they go -- so far. But the pathways ahead in those areas are so exciting, so filled with adventure and promise, so fresh and unsullied by convention, I can scarcely imagine any really smart person not plunging ahead, especially artists, and certainly painters who love to look at everything as equally fascinating. WC --- On Tue, 8/5/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: To teach is to wield sights and sounds > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 5:03 PM > William writes (his entire posting is below): > > "If aesthetics is the study of feelings and emotions, > then as a distinct > subject it is replaced by either psychology and cognitive > sciences, or by cultural > studies. If we really want to know about feelings, > emotions, reflectivity, > and preferences for ordering information, we need to pursue > neurology first, > and cultural patterns second." > > I don't believe this, and in some important ways I > can't believe William > altogether does either. Many of us have, in a classroom or > in our writings, > "taught" aspects of an "art". > > I know that I as such a teacher was trying to enhance the > likelihood that the > would-be "artists" would achieve their goal, > which very often was this: to > reach a level of craft and "art" that would > enable them to choose and arrange > their "material" in ways that would produce the > feelings they were after -- i.e. > "aesthetic experiences" in the contemplators of > their work. This, I want to > believe, is what all teachers-of-the practice-of-an-art are > regularly about. > > But the only thing we have to work with in teaching is the > stuff of > consciousness. Everything we can talk about or point at is > conscious images and sounds. > We say the likes of, "Try to see why I claim this > scene is too long, this > sentence too brief; this event should be dramatized, not > just reported." Or we > talk about colors, composition, the accuracies and fruitful > distortions of > anatomy, and so forth. We can't project on a screen an > MRI of the student's own > brain and say, "Move this neuron closer to that one, > create a neural link between > this cluster of synapses and that one." > > I have definitely seen the aesthetic impact of a work > improved by the > reshaping and arranging of visual and aural elements -- > i.e. conscious elements. The > teacher is certainly reshaping the student's neural > elements as he advises > him, but what the teacher is working with is always sensed > or sensible stuff. > > In fact, all teaching, not just that of an art, is a matter > of wielding > sights and sounds. > > I'm certain William never thought it would be wise for > him to tell all the > members of the faculty he supervised at Northwestern to > quit his department, > take their students with them, and go take courses in > psychology. Or, rather, not > psychology but neural physiology. > > Underlying this discussion is one of the great mysteries of > the philosophers' > famous mind-body problem. It's daft not to recognize > that one's consciousness > is in some way deeply dependent on what's going on in > the meat of his brain. > (Hell, just get real high on pot and go to a familiar > museum and notice how > differently you respond to familiar works.) And yet it > certainly does seem that > our conscious experience, what we hear and see, what we > consciously observe, > can change what we thereafter feel and even the way we > think -- which suggests > that the neural part of us is being molded by conscious > notion. > > In sum, I won't concede what art teachers have been > doing for centuries -- > addressing the visual and aural sensations of their > students with the aim of > ultimately affecting those sensations we tend to call an > "aesthetic experience" > -- has been an uninformed and feckless waste of time. > > > William's post: > > If aesthetics is the study of feelings and emotions > (reflectivity) of > information ordered in a certain manner then it lies within > the domain of psychology, > neurology, and cognitive science. In that case aesthetics > is a subset of > science or it does not exist as a valid inquiry. But > since "information ordered > in a certain way" is a projected structuring of > information, we must ask what > cognitive, cultural, and idiosyncratic patterns induce it. > Presumably, the > cultural inducements may have priority over the cognitive > since cognition seems > to be much more variable than cultural patterns (more > flexible and more > "fanciful"). > > So then, it seems to me that aesthetics as a distinct > subject is either > replaced by psychology and cognitive sciences or it is > replaced by cultural > studies. Art history, and its objects, and art are quaint > relics of a > pre-scientific investigation of mind and culture. They > are necessary forms of responsive > human endeavor but if we really want to know about > feelings, emotions, > reflectivity, and preferences for ordering information, we > need to pursue neurology > first, and cultural patterns second. > > Aesthetics does not exist anymore. it has been absorbed > into bigger, more > revealing inquiries. > > WC > > > > ************** > Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your > budget? > Read reviews on AOL Autos. > > (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017 > )
