Good point, William. I would object to viewing porn being an aesthetic
experience. And then we would need to decide if "Olympia" (Manet) or some
works by Ingres would qualify as aesthetic. I suppose we would be back to
your elite, informed experts (to which I object) as the arbiters of
aesthetici objects. Perhaps someone else can carry the discussion forward on
this point.
Geoff C
From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Expertise and aesthetic experience
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
So does porn qualify re aesthetic experience?
WC
--- On Sat, 10/11/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Expertise and aesthetic experience
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Saturday, October 11, 2008, 3:18 PM
> Here is my "vague summary" definition of
> "aesthetic experience"
> (idiosyncratic though it may be): a satisfying or
> significantly pleasurable
> response, sustantially but not necessarily solely
> affective, to a stimulus
> (painting, poem, play, photograph or natural event - add
> your own
> favourite).
> I agree that definition is difficult, but that is not, for
> me, a reason to
> make no effort. (Look at the fine work of President Bush to
> manage national
> debt.)
> Geoff C
>
>
> >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: Expertise and aesthetic experience
> >Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 08:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >Most philosophers say that whatever the aesthetic
> "experience" is, it
> >cannot be fully explicated because to do that is to
> describe it in terms
> >separate from the experience. Experience is a flow, a
> continuum, always
> >mixed with a variety of feelings and memories in
> addition to the moment at
> >hand. How is it possible to isolate "an
> experience" except in vague
> >summary? Thus I think the aesthetic experience, a
> faulty term, is
> >ineffable. In fact, I suspect we could say the same
> about any sort of
> >experience whatsoever. We need to use a language to
> reconstruct the
> >presumed experience and that has its own experiental or
> even aesthetic
> >evocative and therefore constructive aspects. In
> short, the word we use to
> >describe our experience is also an experience and thus
> has its own defining
> >impact.
> >
> >Because no experience can be replicated by a language I
> frankly have no
> >idea what an aesthetic experience is. Some episodes of
> my ongoing
> >experiental life seem to be more surprising and
> fascinating, and remind me
> >of the "oceanic" metaphor, like out of body
> fantasies, but, really, nothing
> >is adequately both necessary and sufficient to describe
> any experience
> >without making it anew, and false.
> >
> >I am one who answered in the affirmative regarding the
> "aesthetic" benefit
> >of learning from critics. I use the word critic
> expansively here, and
> >apply it a range of writers from writers like
> Baudelaire to art scholars
> >like TJ Clark, among hundreds of others. Why? These
> people have given me
> >deeper access to art, enabling me to experience it far
> more fully than I
> >might have otherwise. Sometimes, their prose alone is
> so enlightening that
> >it becomes fused, as it were, with the artworks they
> discuss. And isn't
> >art something that should attract and reflect the
> distilled experiences
> >expressed by its audiences? When it begins life, an
> artwork is empty, or
> >meaningless, as all things are, and attains vitality
> through the content
> >its audiences create and vicariously extend to it.
> >
> >WC
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--- On Sat, 10/11/08, Chris Miller
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Chris Miller
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Subject: Re: Expertise and aesthetic experience
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Date: Saturday, October 11, 2008, 9:05 AM
> > > As Derek once asked, "What *is* an
> "aesthetic
> > > experience"?" --- and perhaps
> > > not everyone here would say that they had such
> things - or
> > > even if we all
> > > would -- it's quite likely that we use the
> phrase
> > > differently.
> > >
> > > As Mando would say -- it's a "Wow!"
> kind of
> > > experience -- and perhaps we would
> > > all agree -- but beyond that ?
> > >
> > > For example both Cheerskep and I like to watch
> sports --
> > > but I would never
> > > call any of those experiences
> "aesthetic" -
> > > however exciting/intense they may
> > > be.
> > >
> > > Last week -- I saw an animated mural at our local
> natural
> > > history museum. It
> > > made me feel like I was immersed in a primeval
> forest and
> > > about to get
> > > trampled by a herd of woolly mammoth -- a very
> big WoW! for
> > > me -- but I would
> > > save the term "aesthetic experience"
> for what I
> > > felt from some of the
> > > Southwest Indian painted jars in another part of
> the
> > > exhibit.
> > >
> > > Perhaps no one else here would make that kind of
> > > distinction.
> > >
> > > Though I still agree with Cheerskep that expert
> advice
> > > has never caused me
> > > to derive an aesthetic experience from a work
> that did not
> > > occasion it
> > > before.
> > >
> > > (and I'm still waiting to read a specific
> counter
> > > example)
> > >
> > >
> > >
