There is the remark by Oscar Wilde who, upon hearing his friend exclaim the beauty of the sunset they saw, said, "You wouldn't have noticed it before Monet had painted it." (I might be paraphrasing but the content is true).
Today, there is a huge sector in the artworld dealing with artworks which are not made as artworks but are named, enlisted, abducted as artworks. So, you can't exclude the ordinary from the artistic. Like all other non-existing things, the artisic is a notion, not a thing. (Now I expect a treat from Cheerskep). The artistic is what you make. WC --- On Sat, 10/11/08, Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Expertise and aesthetic experience > To: [email protected] > Date: Saturday, October 11, 2008, 3:46 PM > On Oct 11, 2008, at 4:00 PM, GEOFF CREALOCK wrote: > > > Some of us do agree that reading (whatever) is > unlikely to evoke an > > aesthetic experience. Or, to be more specific, reading > criticism. > > Reading a poem, novel might be different. > > Seeing a sunset (say) can provide an intense > experience. However, I > > would not consider it artistic (no human hand involved > in producing > > it) but possibly aesthetic. Would others agree > > I respond to all writing in some degree in an aesthetic > way. Writing > is representation in a two-stage way, namely, first from > ideation in > the writer's noggin to mental words, and then to > written words. The > reader experiences these two stages in reverse order. > > Representation entails one essential aspect, viz., the > representation > (picture, mental ideation, word) is not the thing > represented. They > are two distinctly different entities, and that fact > implies a > corollary. The representation cannot fully capture or > manifest, depict > or portray the thing represented. It's less than the > referent. As > such, the maker of the representation (speaker, writer, > painter, > etc.), chooses the degree and mode of abbreviating the > referent. The > maker arbitrarily declares that all of X in the referent is > contained > in X' in the representation. The representation is, in > fact, a map to > the referent. > > The long and short of this is that the representation > stands > independently and can be apprehended as a thing in itself. > The very > components of a representation can be appreciated for > themselves as > aesthetic objects. > > The critic's words provoke aesthetic reactions. I > suppose for many, > the provocation and response occur well below the limbic > horizon, > until perhaps the writer turns a particular vivid phrase. > > Why do some political speakers so catch the public's > attention? I'm > thinking of Kennedy, Clinton, and Obama, mainly, and > perhaps Reagan. > Throw in Cuomo, a few others, maybe? Because the aesthetic > properties > of their speeches were so overabundant and evident. Think > of the > clumsy and plodding speakers (almost all the rest) and note > their lack > of the theatrical *and* textual achievements of the best. > Their > speeches also have an "aesthetic experience": > it's called dreary. > > But beyond delivery and presentation, the words and the way > they are > written are themselves aesthetic. Turgid writing is > "aesthetic" too, > aesthetically bad, whether it's in a novel or an art > criticism essay. > > Sensate objects evoke aesthetic responses ("aesthetic > experience" > tends to sound too passive: "I was walking down the > street and, like, > an aesthetic experience happened to me, I dunno > how!"), and they are > actively engaged by us. We look or listen to the thing out > there, and > then we engage our mental and physical awareness (which may > occur > almost instantaneously). > > I believe that "aesthetic experience" (misnamed > as it is) points to an > action on the perceiver's part independent of the > "art status" of the > stimulus. I believe that "art" designates a type > of representational > human artifact that does not depend on exact and specific > external > correlation and truthfulness. A WOA is completely free of > the > necessity to be truthful. In other words, "art" > does not designate a > threshold degree of quality in a thing, but its manner of > representation and expectation of verification. > > Thus: anything can be experienced aesthetically; lack of > awareness of > one's aesthetic response does not mean that the object > did not evoke > any response; nonfiction writing in itself can be > aesthetcially > pleasing; and the designating something by the term > "art" does not > depend on its "aesthetic properties," which it > and everything else has. > > > > > > > > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
