Michael writes: "For myself--and I suspect for many others--the feeling I get when I hear, say, Finlandia or Classical Symphony or Jupiter or other work is (a) unique to the work and (b) similar to my feeling for any other piece of music, but (c) distinctly different from *similar* feelings caused by other, non-musical stimuli."
(Michael then adds, "It's the (a) and (b) parts that lead to the derivative term, "aesthetic experience [feeling, response]." Hold that thought of Michael's.) Michael goes on: "Likewise for paintings: the strong feeling I get when I see Van Der Weyden's "Deposition" is similar, but not identical, to the feeling I get when I see Cezanne's "View of L'Estaque" or Motherwell's "Spanish Elegies." When Michael says above "It's the (a) and (b) parts that lead to the derivative term, "aesthetic experience," it seems to me he's avoiding the very question at issue, which is: Why say the music experience and painting experience are both "aesthetic experiences"? What does Michael have in mind when he says "lead to"? He suggests the music experience and the painting experience are "distinctly different" but "similar". But he also says the feelings from Finlandia and Jupiter are distinctly different but similar. 'Similar' is too rimless a word to give us the help we need here. I could argue that there are ways the pain from a broken toe and the taste of vanilla are "similar". Again: Why call -- or, if you prefer to answer it this way -- why ARE the music experience and the painting experience both "aesthetic experiences"? ************** 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)
