Chris,
Although I agree with your taste, I disagree with you position on
Aesthetics.
I think an education in aesthetics has to be, and is, much broader &
inclusive,
encompassing more than some specific classics, or even popular as the
ultimate in taste.
i still feel that everything under the sun may reflect any point of the
entire spectrum choice under the umbrella of aesthetics to any
individual
or group of individuals.
mando
On Nov 16, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Chris Miller wrote:
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.
(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 ?)
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.
******************
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/
