No, I don't agree. Again, how can I judge another's subjective experience? Can I logically say, "No, you didn't experience such and such the right way, or your experience is lacking."? No, I can only judge the expression or (necessarily faulty) recollection that person gives of his subjective experience against the publicly validated or common sense judgments, preferably based on quantitative analysis. To wit: Such and such a piano performance fails to render the full range and timing of the composer's score as it is written and as others have said it has been performed, etc., etc. Thus giving recoverable reasons for the judgment. All of this is separate from the experience one has of the artwork or performance, etc.
I had no discernable emotional reaction the evening a thug pointed his gun at me, my wife, and daughter, then ran away without harming us further. Both my wife and daughter were were physically ill for days afterward. So, we had experienced the same historical event but we had very different experiences. I can't budge on this one. I do champion evaluative judgments of aesthetic experiences once they are placed against quantitative information, but then the experience has been morphed into an objective remaking and the subjective has been eliminated. For instance, Matisse's painting can (note conditional) provide a powerful aesthetic experience because.....answer with logical, observable, art historical, reception theory reasons. And admit that those reasons, while perhaps easily understood, cannot guarantee the subjective aesthetic experience. No one can tell another how they ought to experience feeling. You can only describe the fullest dimensions of something that might be the agent of feeling. That's as far as we can go in judging art and aesthetics. Virtuosity is the agent of experience. It is something to be quantified and is thus objective. The experience is what virtuosity evokes, the subjective. What is evoked is the end, and the end is not the means. 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, 5:21 PM > 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
