Another totally ridiculous statement by Miller. There is a value in trying to interpret what a writer says without embellishment. And then there is merit in analysing what a writer says, perhaps adding commentary, correction, propositions, etc. Worringer did both, one at a time. Miller can't tell the difference and routinely reforms what writers say to suit his own bias. wc
--- On Thu, 7/16/09, Chris Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Worringer and his predecessors > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, July 16, 2009, 11:10 AM > >" But when I realize that you're > only trying to depreciate those who take him > at face > value, to make them out as dupes of the educational system > and as fools who > actually read and make art, I know your agenda. If > you had had an education > you might have learned that it is more convincing to > examine arguments on > their > merits, within the proper context, than it is to make up > ignorant and foolish > remarks about them, especially when you are pretending to > reveal obvious > flaws, > even when learned scholars over the past century have not > mentioned them." > ... WC > > > > I suppose this is the kind of discourse for which Cheerskep > has coined the > phrase "squabble-talk". > > But it does invite me to introduce a distinction which I > consider very > important: > > Education versus indoctrination. > > In his post of July 5 (copied below), William was > playing indoctrinator, as > he presented Worringer's place in the currently > peer-approved discourse of > Modern Art. (or -- at least his version of it) -- and it > reflected no > especially original or critical thought on his part. (i.e., > without the two > sentences that follow the word "personally", and with a few > foot-notes > attached, it would be perfectly acceptable to the legions > of docile high > school editors who serve Wikipedia > > Apparently it never occurred to William that Lee's and > Lipps notions of > "empathy" may well have encompassed a response to > geometry, and when I > pointed out that Worringer himself raised this issue ( > regarding how ancient > Egyptians may have responded to their pyramids) William had > nothing to say. > He probably had never thought about it (and he's not > going to start thinking > about it now!) > > Indoctrination received --- indoctrination transmitted --- > process complete. > > And now you can drink your Kool-Aid. > > (Google "Jim Jones Massacre", Boris, to discover > Michael's invariably > sarcastic reference) > > > > > > > > >In his 1908 essay, Abstraction and Empathy, Worringer > offers a further > refinement of physchological approaches to aesthetics and > art that tended to > center on empathy alone. Whereas other philosophers, like > Vernon Lee and > Theodor Lipps, claimed that empathy was the projection of > the ego into an > artwork -- as in "losing oneself in the work" to enjoy, to > be at one with its > vicarious imitation of nature's vitality, Worringer added > an opposing notion, > abstraction, to account for the withdrawal of the ego from > nature's > incomprehensible complexity to the safe haven of regular, > static, ideal > geometry. Worringer concluded that both approaches > are fundamental to self > affirmation and enable what he called "self privation", > empathy being the > projection of self (metaphorically and as-if the other) and > abstraction being > the escape from the "arbitrariness of organic existence" to > ideal, permanent > form (metaphorically, and as if the immutable and > perfect). > > Worringer was not only contributing to the philosophy of > aesthetics, he was > also offering coherence to the fracturing art concepts of > the 20c. He > recognized that the rules of artistic imitation based on > skill and faithful > rendering of nature -- and the canonic Western tradition -- > were being > strongly affected by a new psychologial expressiveness that > led to a broad > "naturalism" as well as by the influences of Oriental > traditions and even > primitive traditions of geometric patterning and abstract > symbols. thus > Worringer was explaining the new style, the new > contemporary scene. > > Worringer had enormous influence on the later developments > in art and > aesthetics. The critical examination of much 20C art > would be hobbled > without > his concepts. There are analogous approaches in art > criticism in the work of > Camille Pagila, for example, who uses the terms Dionysian > and Apollonian that > correspond to empathy and abstraction, respectively. > > Today we might find problems with Worringer's mutually > exclusive empathy and > abstraction, however much they unite in his notion of > self-privation. New > neuroscience claims an entangled feedback looping for our > thinking that makes > polarities like Worringer's impossible, as Damasio does in > conflating reason > and feeling, or as Lakoff and Johnson do in conflating > brain and mind. > > Further, whereas Worringer chose imitation and empathy as > clearly fundamental > to human nature, and beyond art he is less assertive about > the impulse for > abstraction, which in his hierarchy of mind, is a retreat > from empathy, new > neuroscience shows that people born blind, thus without any > visual > experience, > can draw fundamentqal geometic patterns they "see". > Research seems to confirm > that our fundamental cognition is made up of such simple > patterns -- but > still > patterns infused with empathy. > > At any rate, there is much to admire in Worringer's > essay. Personally, I > think artists have not yet fully explored the aesthetic > potentials of a fully > integrated empathy-abstraction style that fuses the > polarity and thus reveals > the paradox of art. It's only possible in
