Chris: Being (at the moment) prepared to forfeit all my 'cred" on the list:
I enjoy, in general, Paganini's compositions more than Beethoven's. Besides
looking down on my taste and sophistication, what else does that imply about
my tastes in your eyes?
Geoff C
And if I enjoy Arvo Part and Steve Reich. can I gain any 'cred" back?
From: "Chris Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: recognition of skill
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 22:06:48 GMT
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.
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)
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)
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.
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/
