I think Miller's Shaw synopsis shows good thinking, at least reasonable thinking.
The efforts to produce diagrams explaining art were quite a fad during the early 20C. I forget who it was that diagrammed Cezanne's painting, to prove....zilch. Regarding my "favorite topic" I have to confess that I have a new one every few days, being a still enthused by curiosity that's so wide ranging that only painting saves me from being an amateur in every field, save politics and thuggery. Anyway, the golden section is a fairly interesting topic in its aplicatiuon to art and architecture, mostly, since preliterate times. Basic geometry was what enabled largely illiterate builders to construct magnificant and stable buildings. The golden section is basic geometry that is deduced from nature. It is the essence of much natural growth, including the proportions of the human body. It is not in much use today, being replaced by thick literature in art and architecture but it is, we may say, buried in the concepts, used without recognition. However, in our digital age, we can easily distort nature's order and still be reasonable with engineering and visuality. It;s commonplace for magazine illustrations of the fashion model, for instance, to be altered into impossible anatomy for the sake of some ignorant viewer. Nowadays, people are no longer sensitive to nature's habits in growth, form, structures and so the golden section is nothing but a strange trick for them. We are already accustomed to people who have had their bodies changed, stretched, shrunk, rounded, skinnied, to fit the digitally distorted 2-d model of the magazines and video. Even the network TV hucksters sell pills to men who want to enlarge that "certain part of the male anatomy" or "prolong readiness" to conform to the faked images in pornography. This is not the first time nature has been distorted by style of course. Many examples throughout history can be found. The golden section has had an up and down popularity. Today, it is used by dentists who make replacement teeth and manufacturers of windows, fountain pens and expensive automobiles...,to tap into a deep-seated affinity in the brain for nature's order. But I have other favorite topics. Lately it's Montaigne, again. Read his essays on cruelty...beats any horror movie. And his very sober ruminations on the relative enticements of sex and power among great leaders in history. He concludes that such men ultimately prefer power, although they had extravagent sexual adventures. Panaceas are doomed. But Shaw, via Miller, may hint at something I do agree with: Art is the human effort to find/create evidence for beliefs. R.I.P. Shaw. WC --- On Fri, 12/19/08, Chris Miller <burningthr...@netzero.net> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <burningthr...@netzero.net> > Subject: Reading Theodore Shaw: Finis > To: aesthetics-l@mh.databack.com > Date: Friday, December 19, 2008, 10:17 AM > I admit that I just can't go any further into Shaw - > even if he is a pioneer > in developing a theory of art that is free of any values. > The idea of "rareness" was his best shot --- > but it only succeeded for him > because he refused to examine it as anything other > than a mathematical concept that could be expressed by bar > graphs. > > But he does have his moments -- as when he suggests that > the only reason for > an art museum not to take custody of a baseball game is > that it won't fit in > the building. (why not just call the ballpark an art > museum? -- or as we > would now say, an installation of performance art) > Wouldn't Cheerskep agree > with that ? (or --maybe Cheerskep prefers football) > > And then there is his discussion of William's favorite > topic, the "eternal > beauty of the Golden Rectangle". Shaw proves there > is no such thing as the > eternal beauty of anything - i.e. it does not fit his > theory -- which is how > he conducts all of his demonstrations. But what is the > evidence for that > phenomenon, anyway ? Is it preferred in every culture ? > Is it even more > commonly used in ours than any other proportions ? Has > it's attraction been > tested on randomly selected groups of people ? > > The assertion that art is some kind of "phenomenon of > existence" continues > through today -- and if Shaw did not originate it --he at > least deserves some > credit for being the first to attempt it without recourse > to any kind of moral > or spiritual mumbo jumbo. > > Or if he wasn't the first --- who was ? > > BTW -- the only "art work" which was illustrated > in his book was "The Doctor" > by Sir Luke Fides -- an estimable Victorian genre painter > -- whose paintings > would certainly be quite rare to Americans because they can > only be found in > UK museums. > > Ironically -- or perhaps, appropriately -- the image in his > book that might > most appeal to current collectors is one of Shaw's own > fanciful drawings -- > a hypothetical graph which was based on no actual data -- > but which he drew > with the kind of dynamic line and composition that one > might find in a > painting by William Conger. > > Add to that Shaw's well deserved reputation as a crank > and kook, and I think > we have a masterpiece of "outsider art" here. > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click here to find the right business program for you and > take your career to > the next level. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc0pB9HXOAJo6d2xkcYYWq6bH1 > U0ys64Vo6lUCoUhPwsNFBC8/
