Mando: Right on. Inevitably it is a human mind which decides what is good.
Science can describe and most scientists have ethics but the broadly good
and beautiful and moral must be decided by humans - not science.
Geoff C
From: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nested types of discourse
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:06:38 -0700
William,
If beautiful is known to be variable between individuals,
then morality may also have the same variability, I
would think. So how does science justify good?
mando
On Oct 31, 2008, at 4:53 PM, William Conger wrote:
There is a new field of bioethics, related to neuroscience. See Marc
Hauser's book, Moral Minds, 2006. He argues that humans have evolved to
favor moral, just judgments. This has some application to aesthetics
because if the good is moral and if the moral is beautiful then the good
is beautiful. Perhaps a new field of bioaesthetics or evolutionary
aesthetics is forthcoming. If the mind has evolved to benefit from moral
judgment and if the same could be true of aesthetics then the same might
be true of creativity. In other words, biology and evolution may favor
moral creativity. The groundwork for this possibility is being cleared by
biology and neuroscience.
I want to clarify what I think is the chief difference between art theory
abnd art criticism. Art theory tries to determine what sort of art is
exemplified by a cultural identity. It doesn't need to describe specific
artworks or art objects. Art criticism is an examination of particular
artworks in direct or only loose relation to art theory and art
philosophy. Its main subject is existing art objects.
WC
--- On Fri, 10/31/08, Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nested types of discourse
To: [email protected]
Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 10:45 AM
While William is lurking as he waits for Cheerskep to
improve his behavior
-- I'd like to give some more thought to differences
between the discourses of
art criticism/philosophy and the discourses of
neuroscience.
First - by noting that discussions of neuroscience, just
like discussions of
art, include the category of journalism: the writers who
address the general
public in daily newspapers as well as monthly science
magazines.
I can't find popular magazines devoted specifically to
neuroscience (as there
are for astronomy or aeronautics) -- but it is a frequent
subject in magazines
that cover all the sciences -- especially with articles
that deal with the
popular subject of "creativity"
But while "creativity" seems an appropriate topic
for neuroscience,
"judgment" does not -- while, as William notes,
Art Theory is concerned with
"establishing past and future validation" and
"the goal of Art Criticism is
judgment"
Can neuroscience address issues of judgment ?
Presumably, it could show which parts of the brain are
involved -- but as
soon as it asks which judgment is better than another, it
has left its area of
expertise.
For example -- perhaps a study might show that damage to a
certain area of the
brain removes the ability to distinguish the art or
aesthetic quality of a
Jackson Pollock painting from that of a randomly selected
house painter's drop
cloth.
But whether that distinction is relevant to the critical
validation of art is
a question that only art theory and criticism can address.
So I'd like to suggest that neuroscience is no more
relevant to art theory and
criticism than it is to any of the other high-level mental
activities that
humans may pursue -- like chess, mathematics, handicapping
horses, etc.
Indeed it only serves as a distraction which points, as
does the success of
the "institutional theory", to the weakness of
contemporary art theory and
criticism.
_____________________________________________________________
Click here to compare prices and features on point of sale
systems.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/
Ioyw6ijlQC1zGYi8ssWumZijX4tjWx
rXHlHjjYfQ1UV9wx4A43lLco/?count=1234567890
