In a message dated 8/5/08 6:15:03 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I believe that this is the key phrase in Williams missive
> >
> > aesthetics as a distinct subject is either
> > replaced by psychology and cognitive sciences or it is replaced by
> cultural
> > studies.
>
I'm honestly not sure what William has in mind with "cultural studies". If
his notion is so broad as to include what dramaturgs convey about structure,
characterization, conflict, resolution, the use of silences etc, then it would
seem even psychology, with its texts about depth analysis, behavioral
modification, etc would be a "cultural study". So then cultural studies have
many
sub-studies -- including philosophy, and philosophy's sub-sub studies, one of
which
continues to be philosophy of art.
Psychology itself used to be a sub-study of philosophy. And there are areas
that in Aristotle's day were in effect considered "aesthetics", but today with
think of as literary criticism. But lit crit didn't "replace" aesthetics, any
more than psychology replaced philosophy. I think it's rare that any
break-away sub-study has ever eliminated entirely the franchise of the original
broader
study.
What comes to my mind with the phrase "cultural study" is not a stand-alone
discipline, history or economics or anthropology. "Cultural" is to me merely an
adjectival phrase, comparable to "social studies". I would not call social
studies a discipline, any more than "the sciences" or "the humanities", or even
"modern languages". They are simply classifications, and they make serviceable
sense to me. When I went to school philosophy was "classified" as a "
humanity" like literature, art, and music. In centuries past, when philosophy
sufficiently developed and refined a sub-study like chemistry, physics, or
math, it
"broke away". But though philsophy's scop was reduced, it was not "replaced".
Perhaps William means that "aesthetics" will break away from philosophy, and
then aesthetics will be replaced by psychology etc. I see no signs of that
myself.
I certainly agree that if someone claims aesthetics is justified as a
discipline by its persistent central question, which is, "What is art?", that
someone
is on a losing course. To me, the central question of aesthetics is: What
is going on when we undergo an "aesthetic experience"? Why does it happen?
Why does it not happen with most works? I resist William's suggestion because I
can't foresee in our lifetime any possibility that a study of neurology will
answer that question, nor, say I, will it come from any social study. But,
again, I submit I can't be grasping William's notion of "cultural study", or of
how a study of neural physiology will make art school irrelevant.
**************
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
)
