Good example, which supports my point. I am sure if several artists were exposed to the same patterns of light and shade you were, at the same moment and angle, they would not have the same aesthetic response you had, because of existential emotional uniqueness of each of us since birth to produce different reactions to surrounding events which together with life experiences becomes individual matured taste. Boris Shoshensky
-- William Conger <[email protected]> wrote: You can't think your way to the aesthetic. The aesthetic is not reasonable or rational. 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. A few weeks ago, in traffic, I was stunned momentarily by the patterns of light and shade on a truck chassis rolling along next to me. Then for a few minutes everything seemed so "enchanted" by a display of morning light. Nothing was really different, it was the same old dreary Chicago expressway and heavy traffic, but all utility or purpose seemed to vanish and I was left with a sensation of the beautiful. I say I experienced a moment of meaninglessness, a stripping away of purpose and utility. I was not nuts, or drugged or unaware of the vexing traffic. And later, I couldn't even figure out why I was so affected by the sunlight and shadow on a mundane clump of steel and wheel. There was nothing there I had not already seen countless times. My mind was open, maybe, to just accepting the reality I experienced without any judgment (or pre-taste). For a moment I was shadow and sunlight. It was the fleeting oceanic union of self and other. The moment of pure make-believe. WC --- On Fri, 1/16/09, Chris Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Work creates the taste > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 7:57 AM > This personal kind of information is actually what I find > the most interesting > -- and most instructive -- of anything that gets said on > this listserv. (not > just interesting per se -- but in the context of everything > else that person > has posted to the list) > > And so far -- you might notice -- no one has yet reported > that he went to a > show -- saw a painting -- and Bingo! -- that work created > his taste. (not > quite the same thing as going to a movie theater and > viewing a single film for > 90 minutes) > > While scouring the internet for book reviews -- I often > find blogs where > readers (not professional reviewers) report that they have > only come to enjoy > a book after the second -- or even third -- attempt -- > after they have had > more life experience. (which was my response to > "Tales of Genji" --- it put > me to sleep when I was 30 -- and it utterly captivated me > 25 years later) > > But again -- this is not like going to an art exhibit -- > seeing dozens of > pieces -- and suddenly realizing that one of them has > changed your taste. > > So --- I'm suggesting that it's just an > ideological fantasy that > experts/jurors can do this. > > Even if a person has a taste for things that seem to be > different/unfamiliar > -- the discovery of some new, different thing is hardly > changing that taste. > > > > > > Chris: I don't know if it would be correct to say that > "Repulsion" by > Roman Polanski 'changed" my taste in films. > Perhaps it was a matter of > discovering that I had a taste for "art films". > Bela C > > > Matisse liberated me in the ways of using colors, which > lead me to deeper > understanding of art before him (Cezanne),then cubism and > Russian Avant- > Garde. Boris > ____________________________________________________________ You can take it with you! Click here for a luxurious new motor home and travel in style! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/PnY6rx8JiKF0kUvyOATQWjAqnRUfRv bXV9BVkWwoKi1y6qu8trpRq/
