I have a problem with these recent threads. 1. The desire to isolate the aesthetic experience, as purely subjective yet somehow definable is absurd because the purely subjective is not public and the definable is public. One mode cannot explain the other. My own view on this is that the aesthetic experience results from the organic relationship between the subjective and objective. That means that some part of the aesthetic is public and definable and therefore exists independently of any knower but since it is organic, a product of changing mores and cultural symbols, it cannot be an essential element.
2. The argument about museums and their images, reproduction rights, etc., is really a legal issue and not a moral one. If museums own the artworks they have (and there are many degrees of ownership) then they have a right to determine how and under what circumstances their holdings are shown or used, short of destroying them. Public pressure may influence their decisions. But today, in a time of enormous and nearly unprecedented worldwide financial stress, it seems a bit careless to call for huge expenditures by museums to make free reproductions available on the internet. And besides, this is not an aesthetic issue. WC --- On Fri, 3/6/09, Chris Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: High end amusement park > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, March 6, 2009, 8:18 AM > >"It'll take a while for any museum to get all > of it [images of art works] (or > as much as is reasonably practical) on line." > > Michael is continuing to ignore my argument. > > To repeat (for the third time) my issue is not that > it's taking museums too > much time, but that, with a few exceptions, they have > chosen not to post large > images. (when they already have those larger images and no > greater expense is > involved in posting them) > > As William suggests, these museums are apparently waiting > to sell those > larger images to an information vendor (Microsoft ?) at > some future date. > > But I'll admit, there are several debatable issues > involved: > > 1. How important is image size ? ( I say that, up to a > point, size = cultural > value ) > > 2. What is the cultural value of the things in art museums > ? ( I say that > it's more important than science and technology) > > 3. Should that value be restricted to the class of people > who can afford it ? > ( This runs counter to the principle that established > public education, public > libraries, and public museums. Do we really want to abandon > it ?) > > > How did I get started on this rant ? > > It all began with a discussion on the figure sculpture > forum at the > sculpture.org listserv -- where discussion of the various > versions of "David > and Goliath" had raised the general question of where > sculpture had > successfully presented a biblical miracle. > > Since this forum is open to all, it's pretty heavy with > kids who like to make > things, and pretty light on art history and values. > > I then remembered the 5th Century, Asia Minor Jonah > marbles that I had seen > at the Cleveland Museum about thirty years ago. (I guess > they made a big > impression on me). So I went to the web site of the > Cleveland Museum to find > an image. The one they show is so small that the feeling > of wonder and glory > is gone, and if I wanted to > get a larger image, I would have to pay $30 (plus $5 > handling fee) for a > glossy 8X10 photo. > > So that small attempt at shared experience went nowhere. > > And isn't that how a culture keeps going ? With many > successful attempts, > both big and small ? > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click here to become a professional counselor in less time > than you think. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxaLhGBgt33eLefGon4h3aTUV > r0j9XahEB3YmWsa9V4Tm2PXnNYUiE/
