As true to me, now, as when i was younger:
" Is the aesthetic zone where beauty, and all you sense,
is filtered through the soul?
The place where dogma disperses like a fart in the wind?
Where no roads lead in, or can't force one's way in.
Where the place is illuminated by the absence of forethought?
Where one enters unconsciously, serendipitously, and once in,
aesthetics rains on your art?." I believe so."
What Is difficult, is to accept one's own creativity, as is.
mando
On Jan 16, 2009, at 10:27 AM, Michael Brady wrote:
On Jan 16, 2009, at 11:26 AM, William Conger wrote:
You can't think your way to the aesthetic.
What he said.
Otherwise, you're practicing Platonism, projecting an individual
phenomenon (the aesthetic work) from a transcendent ideal (the
aesthetic). I think Platonism is fundamentally, basically,
essentially wrong.
The aesthetic is not reasonable or rational.
Wellll. If Damasio is right, the aesthetic as an emotional
experience participates in reason.
I'm not at all sure why we expect works of art, of any medium, to
produce the aesthetic response, any more than any other experience.
I suspect our expectations arise from two motives. One is simply a
matter of our acculturation: we have learned from our youth that
certain emotions or feelings arise from, and indeed are in some
poorly understood way part of, many things and events of life. The
other is our own individual sensorial and emotional experiences: We
have learned over the years that certain perceptions are
accompanied by certain feelings, typically some kind of
satisfaction (a filling up) or harmony (a pleasing co-occurrence).
Some feelings seem intractably fused with the stimulus, while
similar feelings in other context don't seem that fused or can be
separated from the stimulus. Fashion acts in this way.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[email protected]
