Personally, I remain within my own desired limits,
yet I believe that some one with more talent and
desire then I could realize universal acceptance in
that area.
The aesthetic afirmation may be primary & social
for now, but aesthetics has a way of evolving.
mando
On Oct 11, 2008, at 6:08 PM, William Conger wrote:
I don't know. Tell me why there is or isn't.
WC
--- On Sat, 10/11/08, armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Expertise and aesthetic experience
To: [email protected]
Cc: "armando baeza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, October 11, 2008, 7:42 PM
Is there not such a thing as moral relativism in art.
mando
On Oct 11, 2008, at 2:40 PM, William Conger wrote:
That answer is not analytical. There are always some
people who
advocate any view at all. So philosophically I think
it's pointless
to justify a position on the grounds that some people
will choose
it. The issue finally becomes a moral one. Is the
aesthtic
limited to what is morally good and if so, does it
have a social/
political dimension? I think the aesthetic is
primarily a social
affirmation, not a personal one, at least with respect
to
approaching a workable definition of it. If we
approach it through
the moral and the ethical then will that help to avoid
ending with
purely solipsistic stalemates?
WC
--- On Sat, 10/11/08, armando baeza
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Expertise and aesthetic experience
To: [email protected]
Cc: "armando baeza"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, October 11, 2008, 3:50 PM
To some people ,I think it certainly does.
mando
On Oct 11, 2008, at 1:41 PM, William Conger wrote:
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
