Michael -- What you say below is right on! My strategy in putting together this "Against "Good Art Exists"" series is to impose an Occamesque reduction and see what happens. If, for example, Ducasse was right and all the moving experience in theater is vicarious (remember, Aristotle talks about pity, terror, relief -- all vicarious-seeming emotions) then forget about "aesthetic". Occam's point is that if you can "account for" something with factors X, Y. and Z, there's no justification for assuming there's a Q at work.
I suspect -- I almost HOPE -- I can't succeed in this strategic approach because our common understanding of certain alleged "aesthetic experiences" is so meager. (I've repeatedly failed to get the forum to focus on "The Aesthetic Experience".) The best of Mozart affords me an experience I prize; ditto the best of Van Gogh, and best of Dickinson. But am I justified in calling all of them instances of a sui generis event called "aesthetic experience"? I should haul myself back to my "aesthetics" library and reread the numerous chapters on "The Aesthetic Experience". > "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.]." > > ************** You're invited to Hollywood's biggest party: Get Oscars updates, red carpet pics and more at Moviefone. (http://movies.aol.com/oscars-academy-awards?ncid=emlcntusmovi00000001)
