I can't show that quality of an artwork, by which I mean its formal properties, 
including craft and the correspondence to prevailing taste or style, has any 
direct bearing on its aesthetic effect.  We can try to show some necessary 
connection but in actuality each of us can be momentarily struck by a random 
experience of something that prevents or goes beyond rational cognition or 
explanation.  Yet we persist in employing - or engaging --  formal means to 
reach that unconnected aesthetic end.  Maybe we do it out of sincerity, a 
desire to acquire the aesthetic moment, which is perhaps analogous to the use 
of prayer as a means to achieve a spiritual awareness.

The formal engagement is at least a mind-set that tries to deny the pure 
objecthood and utility and commonplace status of something in order to fuse its 
essential "meaninglessness" to self, making it a projection, as it were, of a 
primal precognitive "oceanic" oneness in what Winnicott calls "potential 
space".  For Winnicott, the self desires to recapture that moment of infantile 
fusion of self and object, self and other at the point where a distinction 
between them begins.  Thus, he developed the notion of "Play and Reality"  the 
transition to "play" or "make believe" object, and the beginning of 
symbolization and metaphor.

Right now I'm very keen on Winnicott and the aesthetic ideas that have 
developed from his psychoanalytic research.  It seems that Winnicott has not 
had much influence in the arts, excepting literary criticism. I wonder why?

WC


--- On Fri, 1/16/09, Chris Miller <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: Chris Miller <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: competent people with discerning taste and knowledge
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 9:38 AM
> A few things I might note about your response, Boris,  to
> the question of how
> on might identify "competent people with discerning
> taste and knowledge"
> 
> First -- it might take a few years to determine whether 
> "creative dynamics"
> have improved, or not --- so it's more of an historical
> judgment than a way to
> determine who is best qualified to jury a show or be  a
> minister of art (which
> is, BTW, a new position being proposed for the Obama
> cabinet)
> 
> Second -- considering the Soviet historical example that I
> presented -- I'm
> wondering whether "cultural dynamics", as you
> conceive it, has any connection
> with the quality of art as I experience it -- since
> it's been my experience
> that a social realist painting or sculpture can be just as
> good as a
> Constructivist or Modern-Classical one.
> 
> (Although -- if we consider  American art history ---  the 
> social/art forces
> that have recently been dominant in the American artworld
> have resulted in
> contemporary  museums that have has much aesthetic interest
> to me as a stroll
> down the aisles of Wal-Mart.)
> 
> Third -- you have queried whether "historical
> dialectic and personal could be
> separated"  -- and wouldn't Saul and Alexei have
> agreed with you ?
> 
> We can probably all agree that our personal
> lives/feelings/judgments are
> affected by the kinds of events and conditions that are
> discussed by
> historians -- whether Marxist or otherwise -- but whether
> that discussion is
> truly prioritizing and  accounting for all those effects --
> that is a question
> that would separate the partisans for an "historical
> dialectic" from the rest
> of us.
> 
> I consider my aesthetic life to be completely outside that
> discussion (so far
> as I've heard it) -- and perhaps those who would
> identify themselves as
> artists on this list would feel the same way.  That would
> explain, for
> example, why some of us can be so strongly
> affected/influenced  by art that
> came from societies that were way-way-way different from
> our own.
> 
> 
>                             ***************
> 
> Chris, my answer is very simple. You are missing
> 'small' details of factual
> logic in the essence of my answer. Competency changes
> things
> for the Good. Commissars were not competent, so they
> changed dynamics of
> timing, but not creativity, which they could not stop but
> only slow down.
> Pasternak and alike influenced true creative dynamics of
> USSR more then all
> drunken commissars.
> Boris Shoshensky
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> Refine your culinary schools at a top Culinary program near
> you.
> http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc1mKzKzYhhfdG6mycihEreuiO
> ptkzvo1HTTZ2O7FZgVg0BAg/

Reply via email to