--- On Sun, 11/16/08, Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: recognition of skill > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, November 16, 2008, 4:06 PM > I don't think an aesthetic experience is different from > any other except to > the degree that we enjoy and get involved with it. > > We can never know everything about what we or anyone else > has experienced -- > but still we can be objective about certain, specific > mis-apprehensions.
Which have nothing to do with the subjective quality of the experience. > > A person who has seen "Hamlet" and doesn't > realize that the uncle has murdered > the father has missed something very important about the > play. (whether that > person believes in ghosts or not) To not know certain facts or the whole story line may be important to analyizing the work and sensing it's historical or even public art merit has nothing to do with the quality of a subjective experience. Sometimes, people who know much about a particular piece of art say that they cannot experience it aesthetically. > > Just so -- a person who is mostly impressed by the > virtuosity of a musical > performance has not been strongly affected by the music -- > at least at the > moment that recollection is occurring (which is, BTW, my > usual response to > "free jazz" -- all that impresses me is the > instrumental virtuosity) The key word here is mostly. And, again, who's to say what is the kost affecting aspect in performance art? > > Virtuosity is mostly irrelevant in the visual arts -- but > it's a very big deal > in the world of classical music because there is so much > intense competition > among so many people to perform so few pieces. Virtuosity > is what sets them > apart -- and it's also what most people in the audience > are going to notice. > > I've gotten to know a husband-wife team of classical > musicians over the past > few years -- where the husband stands out as an incredible > virtuoso on his > instrument. He does things very few other people can do -- > and as a result he > gives master classes and performances continuously all over > the world. > > But in my humble opinion -- his wife delivers a much more > emotional > performance -- and that's what I buy concert tickets to > hear - with someone > like him as the perfect accompanist. That's why it's your humble opinion. It matters to you. It's your judgment. > > It's like the difference between a world-class gymnast > at the Olympics - and a > ballerina -- which is a real difference -- even if most > people prefer to watch > the gymnasts. Huh? > > (and yes -- there is some music that seems to have been > written just to show > off virtuosity -- but nobody puts Paganini at the same > level as Beethoven -- > do they ?) Judgment in a broad sense, in a social sense, may not account fvor judgment in a subjective sense. > > There *are* wrong reasons for liking things -- and that is > the basis of an > education in aesthetics - an education that seems to be > completely outside the > scope of the Humanities as we now know them. For you to declare that there are wrong aesthetic judgments at the purely subjective level is to confuse the historical and the analytical, the persuasive, the social, the class affectations, and all sorts of quantitatively based measures with the purely subjective, which may include some of that but does not require it because the subjective cannot be quantified. You are setting yourself up as the king of taste and what "we" know of the Humanities and I respond that you have few if any qualifications to perform the king's job and none at all when it comes to rating another's experience -- an experience you cannot possibly share, ever. By the way, what do you really know of the Humanities in academia? Basically, you're just trying to trivialize what I said about experiencing the pianist. Sad. WC > > > ****************** > > > > > >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. > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click here to find experienced pros to help with your home > improvement > project. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc1zNXfk6Cs3zvX7ERJHMZr6Oc > AlclQdaHw6tB8iRUyXZGRRC/
