Cheerskep:
For example, some aestheticians of the past have insisted the
alleged "aesthetic" experience we get in theater is not aesthetic at
all, it is "vicarious".
Other aestheticians may have asked, "Why not call the experience
occasioned by comedians 'aesthetic'? We say a sad soliloquy or poem
is 'aesthetic' because it moves us 'emotionally'. But a comic can
move us to laughter. Isn't mirth an emotion? Why not call them both
'aesthetic'?"
(Playwrights of comedies are as a rule assiduously avoided by
professional aestheticians. Goldsmith, Congreve, Sheridan, and Wilde
almost seem like an embarrassment to them. When have you ever read
an academic paper about Jack Benny, Fred Allen, Mike Nichols, or
even Lenny Bruce? Evidently none of them has ever done anything
"aesthetic'; they are not "artists".)
An aside here: How many Academy Awards have been given to actors,
directors, or writers of comedy movies, or to the movie itself?
Best actor: 3 in the last 50 years; Best actress: 11; Director: 11
(half were musicals); Best Movie: 6; Writing (two per year; three per
year before 1957: 20
But if that point is conceded, why don't we call "aesthetic" the
experience from witnessing any event in "real life" that moves us to
sadness or laughter?
It seems that you use "aesthetic experience" as an almost exact
equivalent to the name of some other emotion, such as sadness or
mirth, and even to a behavior (laughter). That is, you seem to assert
in the situations you describe that something provokes a feeling of
"sadness," but since that feeling arose from witnessing a play or
seeing a painting, then something else interposes itself, the
"asethetic experience," which mediates between what the person
witnesses (the play) and how he feels (sad). Bill of Occam would
suggest you get rid of the middle man and just say, "The play made me
feel sad [or laugh myself silly, or cry, etc.]."
I believe the "aesthetic feeling" (or "experience") one senses is
specific and proper to the thing in front of him, and only in measure
to the properties unique to it, i.e., to a painting or song or play.
The feelings of sadness or empathy or anger that are aroused by the
representations are proper to the referents, not to the play or
picture. My most favorite movie of all time (and second on my list is
far behind) is "A Man for All Seasons." I've seen the movie many
times, I've seen stage productions quite a few times, and I've read
the script so much my first edition paperback has completely fallen
apart (I keep it in an envelope). It thrills me as a play--I get a
dramatic-aesthetic feeling--because of how Bolt formed it, how he
crafted the words, how he arrayed the scenes and guided the action,
and (best of all) the sheer wonder of the language and diction--all of
which was so well embodied in the movie. All of these ways I admire
the play coalesce around the dramaturgy, not around English history or
matters of morality and law and ecclesiastical governance, etc.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[email protected]
