"We live in an age that priveleges the scientific/ technical way over the aesthetic - so it wants to find "the nuts and bolts" of everything -- in this case, presenting "the formal aspects of art" or the "psychology of vision" or "visual literacy". But when these ideas are examined -- poof ! --- they vanish."
It might be worth point out, Mr Miller, that simply because _you_ reject the claims being made by Mr Shelby, it does not follow that they are false, ill defined, or what have you. I believe you are now being willfully, and needlessly thick. Mr Conger said more or less the same thing to you in the course of this thread. Furthermore, our age is no different than any other, in its willingness to investigate the nuts and bolts, as you put it, of artistic phenomena. Aristotle's _Poetics_ is an early version of this (not to mention his _Rhetoric_ and _Homeric Questions_. The entirety of the Italian Renaissance is premised on the idea that if one master's technique, which involved the codification of ways of structuring pictoral space through geometry and perspective, one achieves the standards of fine art. We could indefinitely continue such a list. But what would be the point? For you have recently taken up the tactic of merely rejecting, with preposterous statements like X is too ugly for me to contemplate (a fine, philistine attitude, which closes down aesthetics entirely), the good natured attempts of other people to respond to your initial demand for measurable and definable truths -- as if truth itself were subordinated to your personal, and equally undefined and immeasurable standards of judgment (I'm surprised that Cheerskep didn't notice that). The problem, Mr Miller, is that you mistake the truth of a claim, which can be measured and defined, with Truth itself. Honestly, are you being trollish on purpose? On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Chris Miller <[email protected]>wrote: > David, I am suggesting that common 'truths' need to be examined. > > We live in an age that priveleges the scientific/ technical way over the > aesthetic - so it wants to find "the nuts and bolts" of everything -- in > this > case, presenting "the formal aspects of art" or the "psychology of vision" > or > "visual literacy". But when these ideas are examined -- poof ! --- they > vanish. > > The only "definable and measurable" truths about art are surveys of taste: > what kinds of people prefer what kinds of things. > > > *************** > ********************************************* > > >I entered this discussion because you had questions about the phrases > "visual > literacy" and "formalist credentials" and I just tried to inform you about > what those phrases commonly refer to. I've even heard terms like those used > in > a pejorative sense as in that case of my instructor who was told that he > had > mastered all these formal > techniques and couldn't seem to say anything with them. These are aspects > of > the psychology of vision that we use to see form, space and color that > virtually all humans share. This is why I call them truths. Do you have to > employ them all in artworks to make a good work of art? No. I like Frank > Stella's minimalist paintings and there is no > perspective. He's still called a formalist. The formal aspects of visual > art > are just the nuts and bolts of all artworks. They don't always add up to a > great work of art. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Need cash? Click here to get a payday loan. > > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc1k6AZV19gXMDD0FHk6Alrp81 > VzSi9LfWnKl9amBIuwoi6ri/<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc1k6AZV19gXMDD0FHk6Alrp81%0AVzSi9LfWnKl9amBIuwoi6ri/>
