It's quite reasonable to expect people in a given cohort or specialty to carry on their dialogue without bringing all the outsiders up to speed. One has to start somewhere and I hope it's no surprise to Miller that the point beginning point is often well ahead of him.
There is a difference between writing aimed at capable laymen and that addressed to specialists in a field or topic or even a particular sub-topic. My reading outside of art criticism and art history is mostly limited to the "capable layman" arena. Actually, although Miller likes to presume what others like or do or think, he's wrong about my being "mostly interested in neuroscience". Outside of my profession, my greatest intellectual interest in probably history, with a special focus on American and English History. Yet, whatever I happen to be doing is really my central interest. Today it was toy making for my grandchildren. Tonight I'll read something, whatever strikes my fancy...probably Simon Schama's History of Britain, Vol. II. Tomorrow I'll be working on a print and maybe start a new painting and reread the Proust book. And then there's my genealogy hobby. I am excited by almost everything (except spectator sports and the antics of pop culturalists. Incidentally, it is hard to go back to a book like the Proust and Neuroscience book. It is intended as a middlebrow overview of creative personalities and how their idiosyncratic views seemed to fortell what recent neuroscience demonstrates. I do think it's worth our time to discuss it generally since several here have deeply opposed a scientific approach to art and aesthetics, and I wonder why. After all, the scientists don't just make up stuff ... whereas philosophers do. WC --- On Wed, 12/3/08, Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Minimalist conception of aesthetic experience > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 10:54 AM > 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." > > ____________________________________________________________ > Find the perfect photo - click now. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc0u72lS9Ae9GTWUVUkMMze0FB > X1M7R0z6T6Z8i3QuCnKOsYU/
