This Imago comment is pretty good although my recently acquired bit of emnpathy for Miller would ask for a slightly less acidic tone.
Actually my earlier comment re pictorial space is about as universal as it could be since nothing on a flat surface is excluded. Again, I claim that any mark on a flat surface invites our perception of spatial depth whether or not any perspectival system or overlap is employed. In every single case, of course, any perception of depth on a flat surface is make believe because the actual depth is absent (excluding tiny variations of surface texture. Even the blank canvas that Imago mentioned invites our spatial imaginings (remember Rauschenberg's blank canvas ptgs.) It is surely the case however, that in practical terms when we speak of pictorial space we are suggesting a system of some sort, a perspectival system, that organizes our imagining, the make believe depth. But who can remain practical when wading the swamps of aesthetics? WC --- On Thu, 2/12/09, imago Asthetik <[email protected]> wrote: > From: imago Asthetik <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Definable and measurable truths > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, February 12, 2009, 10:04 AM > 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.
