How does Michael maintain such a high level of thinking in a current world environment ruled by ludicrous stupidity? I watch the news and am amazed by the nuttiness of political discourse, the screaming and yelling, the racism and the panic, the trembling fear of the pundits, the hatred for intelligence and truth. His remarks about Miller's comments do point to the critical divide on the list, the unreflective acceptance of rigid values versus the open curiosity for possibilities. I don't know if Michael is a sixpack Joe but I do know he is a subtle and persuasive thinker. So, unruly gang, pay attention. WC
--- On Fri, 10/10/08, Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Expertise and aesthetic experience > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, October 10, 2008, 9:07 AM > On Oct 10, 2008, at 9:34 AM, Chris Miller wrote: > > > 1. Has expert advice ever caused you to derive an > aesthetic > > experience from a > > work that did not occasion it before ? > > > > 2. Have you ever found ever found criticism to be as > worthwhile > > aesthetically > > as experiencing artworks directly? > > > > And regarding that second question -- I would have to > answer "yes" > > > > Not that criticism has ever been as worthwhile > aesthetically to me > > as my > > favorite works have been -- but I have often found it > as worthwhile > > -- or even > > more so ----than the works to which it refers. (as > when a sharp > > reviewer > > trashes a movie that I found dull -- or when a > literary critic is > > writing > > about poetry written in a language I can't read.) > > > Let me see if I get this right: Miller has found it > worthwhile when a > literary critic writes about a poem written in a language > he cannot > read. Did I get that right? (I'm always thrown by his > idiosyncratic > use of punctuation, an orthographic analog to the > relationship between > "abstract expressionist" techniques and > conventional Beaux-Arts > techniques, btw.) > > Is Miller asserting that a critic can lead him to an > aesthetic > experience of something he does not directly understand ... > and thus > cannot appreciate? Is Miller claiming in this message to > value the > exact thing he denounces about modernist painting, namely, > that most > of it ostensibly is beyond immediate comprehension (it > doesn't observe > the rules and presents itself in an inexplicable way, like > his foreign- > language poem) and it is revealed to him by the > intermediary work of > critics? I thought those guys, the critics (and their > fellow- > travelers, the theorists, gallerists, professorists, and > collectorists) were all coconspirators in a great act of > charltanry? > > So, critics do boon work. They are, after all, not in the > thrall of > Satan. > > Note, btw, Miller's comment, "as when a sharp > reviewer trashes a movie > that I found dull -- or when a literary critic is writing > about poetry > written in a language I can't read": The reviewer > writes about a > specific movie, but the literary critic writes about a > generality, > "poetry," which means abstracted conclusions > about observations. This > is probably just sloppy (--I mean, idiosyncratic--) use by > Miller... > Ah, why be coy? I think this slip reveals his slipshod > thinking, his > constant staggering and careering around between individual > items and > general statements. > > > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
