The unavoidable aesthetic quality in anything will always remain a subjective quality no matter the judgement of so-called experts. 'El que tiene mas saliva,come mas Pinole" they use to say. I wish I could translate that phrase for you, but it refers to judgement. mando
On May 9, 2009, at 4:33 AM, Frances Kelly wrote:
Frances to Armando with thanks... Nonetheless, the objective quality and the subjective judgement even together simultaneously would likely still be inadequate to render the ordinary object sensed as automatically becoming art, assuming that art is a lofty class now holding extraordinary objects. The probe into possibly framing a define and theory of architecture has seemingly exposed several preliminary issues to address in preparation for that task; such as whether classes like art and architecture are objective constructs standing alone aside from mind, and if any ordinary object found or built for somatic bodily use will thereby be held or deemed as architecture merely due to this fact, and if an architectural object is automatically art by simply being architecture, and if art should be divided into several kinds of art to house at least several kinds of architecture, and if the judgement called to art might be either sensitive or cognitive or emotional or intellectual, or even unnecessary and marginal. You wrote... Yet, the unavoidable aesthetic quality has to exist, before judgment. Which may be more important?
