Yes, we need diverse modes of thinking. I'm sick of visual art anyway. Let's talk philosophy as it needs to be more informed by science, I mean the findings of the psychologists and the neurologists. Or let's talk about poetry and how it relates to the notions of mind vs. body. I want Cheerskep to talk about Dickinson. I want to know why she's better than, say, Robert Service, (I'm sure she is but why?). I want to examine the aesthetics of culture, the myths that underlie the self identity of groups. How history is played out as a myth in conflict with reality.
Why is our culture anti-aesthetic, or is it? I mean on a big scale. For instance, why do we idealize the future while doing nothing to create its values through now lost "work for the ages" ambitions. There's so much more to think about than why we always flunk Miller's art tests. Forget about visual art. It's too crazy-serious nowadays, intentionally muddled, meaningless, unfickle and far too advanced for any consensus. But Aesthetics is a group issue, shaped by broad social tides. Up close and personal it's like your cat -- warm and fuzzy but totally uninterested in you, you, you! So let's get on to the big, broad notions of aesthetics that are shaped by cultural aspirations -- and are the defense against the enemies of aspirations. WC --- On Fri, 10/10/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Expertise and aesthetic experience > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, October 10, 2008, 11:42 PM > No-- don't leave the list, Geoff. It is far too > top-heavy in visual > artists.We need all kinds of other worthy representatives. > > > ************** > New MapQuest > Local shows what's happening at your destination. > Dining, Movies, Events, News & > more. Try it out > (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
