You are of course free to doubt, Mr Miller. But your objection mistakes a difference in the manner of dissemination of knowledge, and the criteria governing the access to education for a substantial difference in knowledge itself. To modify an old and tired expression, you are arguing about apples when I -- and others here -- are trying to talk about typewriters.
Furthermore, there were several schools in Athens (the most famous being The Academy and the Lyceum -- but there were others); hence on at least this score, it is not much different than today (if one were to think demographically, having both the Academy and the Lyceum in a city the size of Athens is itself incredible. There are cities today that still don't have one site of Higher Education). It should also be pointed out that the ancient Greek conception of education was hardly the decadent, fig eating, wine drinking, lounging around that you seem to envisage. Theoria and praxis were quite differently aligned in Greece, than they are today. Your claims concerning ancient Greek education, in other words, are simply and utterly inaccurrate In general, I find this Nostalgia for a 'past perfect,' which is embodied by your claim, 'the times have changed,' to be misplaced. I also find your claim that we've replaced an aesthetic mode of being with a technical one equally Romantic, equally mythological. If not horrying in its political implications (and it truly is, Mr Miller), this Sehnsucht for a 'past that never really was' is a purely ideological stance, one that can be neither justified by appeal to concrete fact, nor by rational argument. I also find myself at a loss concerning your second point. __The Poetics__ is abstracted form one text, but it is no less 'universally binding' than Mr Conger's claims concerning pictorial space. It applies to all Drama (albeit perhaps not Comedy, although I seem to remember Aristolte making the occasional comment about how Comedic theatre differs on some point from the dramatic; in any case, __The Poetics__ applies to all so called high styles), Quite simply put, I cannot fathom what you take your criticism to be here. Now, concerning statements I take to be true, and would wish to submit for review, I can only say that I am quite happy with what Mr Shelby has shared with us. I do not feel the need to supplement what he has already said. My one concern, which I think has now been fully addressed, is that superficial claims, like 'things have so drastically changed' should be avoided (especially when they impute a mythological, prelapserian origin that we should struggle to re-attain by any means necessary [either as individuals 'bucking the system' or as a 'movement']), since the only contribution they make is to polarize people. Or, at the very least, if one feels compelled to make such claims, one should at least argue for them, and provide evidence and justification of them. On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Chris Miller <[email protected]>wrote: > Imago Aesthetic has written: > > > >"our age is no different than any other, in its willingness to > investigate the nuts and bolts, as you put it, of artistic phenomena." > > > First -- I am doubting that Aristotle's approach was any more > characteristic > of 4th C. Greece than Alberti was of 15th C. Italy -- even if we now > consider > them the most important intellectuals of their day. > > Consider the difference between Aristotle's day, with a few hundred idle > young aristocrats attending lectures in the Lyceum -- and today's > university > system with branches in every urban center as it qualifies practitioners > for > every human profession except fortune-telling and prostitution. > > > Second -- each of them were investigating a single style (or, in the case > of > Aristotle's Poetics, a single playwright) -- whereas today our scope of > "artistic phenomena" is so broad that William tells us that "pictorial > space > means make-believe space suggested on a flat surface" -- which could be > anything from a blank white canvas to Raphael's "School of Athens") > > Times have changed, Mr. Aesthetic -- and if you would like to present some > "measurable and definable truths " regarding the artistic phenomena > available > to us today -- please do so. > > > ---------------- > > > > > > 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. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Need cash? Click to get an emergency loan, bad credit ok > > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc02Ij3HuEUBMLuqXrNoGPQ4Wa > ELEVWSNfG4upDfgPNF0AwZ2/<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc02Ij3HuEUBMLuqXrNoGPQ4Wa%0AELEVWSNfG4upDfgPNF0AwZ2/>
