From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nested types of discourse
To: [email protected]
Date: Saturday, November 1, 2008, 10:56 AM
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
