If every thing in nature is in constant change, why worry where the
needle of
aesthetics points at different times. Art is not forever. enjoy the
now of it.
mando
On Jul 2, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
Worringer tells us that "it is necessary to agree on this, that
the instinct
of imitation, this elementary need of man, stands outside of
aesthetics in
the proper sense and that its satisfaction has in principle nothing
to do with
art." --- which he tells us "is created out of mankind's
psychological needs,
the highest happiness"
Whereas Aristotle asserted that wrote that "to learn gives the
liveliest
pleasure, not only to philosophers but to men in general; whose
capacity,
however, of learning is more limited" -- and that is Aristotle's
explanation
for the universal pleasure felt in things imitated.
So, it looks like what we have, here, is a profound difference of
opinion.
I'm inclined to agree with The Philosopher, because I'm really not
sure how
to draw the line between imitation and what Worringer calls
"naturalism" or "
the expression of organic vitality"
And I'm doubting that Aristotle would have made that distinction,
either.
I.e. -- one sort of man (the ordinary kind - of limited knowledge)
is pleased
by an imitation of ordinary things, while another kind of man (the
philosopher) is pleased by an imitation of things that only a
philosopher
might be able to notice.
____________________________________________________________
Come clean with a brand new shower. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/
BLSrjnxSDIDDfzF79agcQFQspfDG3z
jfiT6chWyEsLrEbjJ0cUNLLhKsXFO/
