William: OK. I acknowledge that you didn't claim that your ONLY experience
was noticing the movement of the pianist during the performance. I further
acknowledge that the act of attending a symphony concert, seeing a painting
or sculpture adds to the experience in a way that a recording or picture
cannot. (Then, there is Glenn Gould, who quit performing to devote all his
performances to recordings. Maybe we could allow that that is a particular
rendering of a work, with its own advantages and limitations.) Enjoyment of
a work, painting or sulpture (whatever enjoyment means - or - for
Cheerskep's sake, what notions our mind associate to enjoying a work) IS the
point. However, you might agree, that if a Chicago Symphony patron ONLY
noticed the pianist's movements, that that would be regrettable, or a sad
comment on the body of the performance.
Geoff C
From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: recognition of skill
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:52:41 -0800 (PST)
Well, your money is wasted because while I remarked on Trpceski's skill I
didn't mention the the impact on me of the Chicago Symphony playing with
him Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto NO. i in B-flat Monor, OP. 23. As a
regular (but not overly informed) patron at the Symphony, I think I am
responsive to music and not only a player's performance skill. I did
mention his skill only to bring to mind his being fused with his music,
moving with it as though the music were palpable, as if he was moving in
water. This is one of the benefits of witnessing the music being played.
We not only hear music but we also see it, and sense it wholly.
Experiencing art is a physical engagement that we often overlook. Even
"looking at" a painting or certainly a sculpture is a physical act --
looking, walking, touching, being aware of ourselves and the immediate
environment in the engagement of the work. All of this is different from
simply listening to a recorded piece of music or looking at a reproduction
of a painting in a book. Art "in the flesh" offers a kinesthetic
experience.
But the bigger issue is related to whether or not we can judge anyone's
aesthetic subjectivity. I think not. How is Chris, or anyone, to know
what my aesthetic experience is? How can anyone say that another's
aesthetic experience is wrong, or limited, or missing? This the the
fundamental question we ask about aesthetic experience. Can it be
objectively prescribed or measured? Can we experience art for the wrong
reasons? Are there proscriptively wrong reasons? I say no. No. No. And
No. That's why I quoted Gombrich a while back, his saying that there are
no wrong reasons for liking an artwork. This does not exclude potential
amplifications of liking.
We might argue about what ought to be experienced for aesthetic value,
based on many assumptions involving culture, class, novelty, and more. But
when it comes to the actual experience, we can only ask each other what it
was like (metaphorical implication intended). And that metaphorical
response will never equal the vanished actual experience because it is
explained in substitute form and because any memory is a reconstruction and
therefore faulty, misleading, incomplete or too fanciful. There is a reason
subjectivity is elusive. It is subjective, not and never objective.
WC
--- On Sun, 11/16/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: recognition of skill
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Sunday, November 16, 2008, 9:24 AM
> William: For my money, if a composer has completed a piece
> of music, has it
> performed and your conclusion after hearing it is:
> "Well, what skill and
> technique!" I would expect the composer to be
> disappointed. His music has
> not reached you, made a difference to you. The performer
> might be pleased
> but I would agree with Chris about your missing of the
> music (which is
> surely the point of the effort).
> re discourse: He WAS the final word in October. I'm not
> sure who it is this
> month.
> Geoff C
