Michael: Someone else can infer/imagine/have a notion about me if they wish.
My point is: to what extent are they likely to infer/imagine correctly. Is
it a slight lowering of an eyelid? Increased colour in my cheeks? Something
that they (not I) had for dinner last night?
To be fair, this (unconscious/unnoticed responses) is an old question in
psychology. (I have blundered into old questions in philosophy.) My
understanding is that the modal response in current psychology (social
psychology) is: if you want to know something of/from someone, just ask
them. If they can't tell you, they don't know.
If I understood Luc's point: if we agree something is subjective, then we
can't say we, as outsiders, know more about their subjectivity than he/she
(the subject) does.
Re op versus abstract realism: I refuse to venture into providing my
defintion of schools of art. My point was only to try to clarify whether
"school of art" would help to define the nature of a representation, i.e. if
you want a mimimally shaped representation, take a photograph, if you want
the artist's vision, it may be impressionist, fauvist, futurist, cubist
etc.... The fauvists might condemn the quality of anyone else's
representation. All relating to the quality vs. the nature of a
representation of a work.
Geoff C
From: Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Unnoticed asthetic response
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:30:14 -0400
Geoff
You
You could claim that I should have responded, that almost all other
people respond but I'm not clear how you could infer a response from
me. You could infer that water will freeze at 32 degrees F but that's
not subjectively mediated.
Me
When did I say you "should" have responded?
You
I wrote that you "could say" not "did say". Yes, you didn't say/ write I
"should have responded".
I realized that after I sent the message, but I still am confused about
when I stated that someone else can infer your response.
On another subject: I understand the nature of a representation to
include the quality (whatever might be intended by that term) as an
aspect inherent in the nature of the representation. Are you implying
something like the nature of a representation being op art as opposed to
abstract realism?
I don't understand your question. Is there a typo in it ("being op art")?
And what do you mean by "abstract realism"?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
