William: Let me get this straight. You are claiming that, for example,
coming out of a Chicago Symphony performance behind someone, you overhear a
complete discussion of the evening, indicating that the overwhelming
experience someone derived from the works performed had to do with the
movements of a/the perfomer(s), you would find nothing either remarkable or
sad about that information. Yes, it's wonderful that the individual had what
MIGHT be termed an ae. But, assuming the presentation consisted of works by
your favourite composers, you would find no aesthetic miscarriage in that
reaction, no sadness in yourself that such art evoked no response (even
outrage) in at least one listener?
My sadness wouldn't be for the listener but rather for the composer, or
aesthetics, as magnificent works would be for nothing (for that person).
If a tree falls in the forest ... if no one appreciates a wonderful work....
I am not advocating tears if someone decides that Matisse' work is trash.
That would constitute a missed opportunity and opportunity is missed all
over the place and we cannot grieve every failed conception. In any case, I
think that it's ... unfortunate that more people don't share your tastes,
though there's nothing to be done about this.
Yes, different folks necessarily have different ae's. That is not the
question.
If it's quite satisfactory to the playwright, sculptor, or composer that no
one cares about his/her work, I might agree with you. I am not claiming the
point of the work is to receive recognition or caring. Once it's done (which
can be a tough question for a playwright) I assume that part or all of the
point has been reached. I retain the belief that some part of most artists
is pleased to have a work be recognized and valued, if it happens.
Geoff C
From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: recognition of skill
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:19:51 -0800 (PST)
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
