Chris asks: "Is it possible to write about aesthetics without reference to a specific canon of aesthetic objects ?"
One might reasonably respond: "Obviously it IS possible -- you just did it." "Oh, but writing just one posting about aesthetics isn't 'writing about aesthetics' etc. . ." 'Isn't'? In a message dated 12/3/08 11:56:40 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I am surprised that no one here has anything to say about this dispute > which > involves at least 5 academics who have published books that relate to it. > > Although, I'd be even more surprised if any contemporary academic ever wrote > a > book that attracted my attention beyond the first page, as they are far more > concerned with the canon of philosophy than with the those of music, > painting, > poetry etc. > > Is it possible to write about aesthetics without reference to a specific > canon > of aesthetic objects ? > > I don't think there's any point to it -- unless you're addressing how anyone > might feel about anything. (and maybe that's why William is mostly > interested > in neuroscience, which is as fascinating as anything else in biology, but of > no special interest to me) > > This is why I find Randian aesthetics more interesting -- because at least > they will stand up for what they think has the greatest value -- rather than > passively letting it be defined by the marketplace in cooperation with the > art > museum. (although, unfortunately, I usually disagree with their choices) > > ************ > > >Chris is right to question this. When I read it, I felt the announcement > was > a typical for-members-of-the-club-only invitation from philosophy academia. > "Oh, well, if you don't already know what the minimalist conception is, > you're > of no interest to us." > > ************** Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp& icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010)
