> Wouldn't Adorno's "emphasis of the non- or anti-discursive character of
visual art and music...in connection with its 'bodily' presence" preclude > Bernstein's text from giving you "a completely different way of seeing, and > a different aesthetic experience."? I do not see how or why it would. To say that an artwork is a singularity whose meaning is its presence is not at all contrary to saying that a work of aesthetics changes the way i look and experience that singularity. Where do you see the preclusion? Wouldn't Bernstein's text be more useful *after* you've had your aesthetic experience, and you're thinking about the broader issues of cultural > history? Perhaps. But I do not understand what difference that makes. The way one sees things is a cultural historical phenomenon after all. The difference between broader issues of cultural history and a free-running imagination is a difference in explicit awareness, not of kind. My feeling is that your remarks introduce a false opposition between the individual and personal experience of something and the theoretical, conceptual clarification of it. I do not hold such a view myself, and I would reject it, so I do not quite understand what your objection is. On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Chris Miller <[email protected]>wrote: > >Could you elaborate upon the tension you see between Bernstein and Adorno, > Mr > Miller? > > Wouldn't Adorno's "emphasis of the non- or anti-discursive character of > visual art and music...in connection with its > 'bodily' presence" preclude Bernstein's text from giving you "a completely > different way of seeing, and a different aesthetic experience."? > > Wouldn't Bernstein's text be more useful *after* you've had your aesthetic > experience, and you're thinking about the broader issues of cultural > history? > > > So, I agree with Saul that it's not so much that there is tension between > the > two, but "Might not these be seen as the > complimentary positions : experience and interpretation (self-reflection > and > analysis)" > > Unfortunately, I am unable to parse the other paragraph that that Saul sent > directly to you - the text seems to have been > garbled in transmission. > > There is, of course, no law against making experience and interpretation a > simultaneous activity. > > Isn't that what an archaeologist does when studying an artifact to see how > it > will impact specific, historical questions? > > But it can also be important to ignore all such questions, and just > become > immersed in whatever sensual world the artifact presents, letting the > imagination run free in the garden. > > And once you've gotten used to doing that, you may find that it will become > ever more difficult to accept the kind of > sweeping generalizations made by writers like Bernstein. > > Aesthetically, most artifacts are worthless and boring, and deserve to be > generalized and then ignored. > > But a few of them are quite special -- even if they're only a few lines > written by Herrick or drawn by Rembrandt or sung by Roberta Gambarini (a > new > jazz singer worthy of attention) > > And the aesthetic power of those few objects is so great and so specific, > no > generalization can touch them, and history > becomes irrelevant.. > > That's what Adorno was saying (or if he wasn't -- he should have been) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Let great B to B marketing solutions propel your brand to new heights! > Click > now! > > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxX0BRdHYNh8fp5gYjOlSdUGU > rvOQ0F4AKqSkr6EVzJeAzq59Zt37S/
