>As Proust demonstrates, dunking a pastry in coffee can lead one to all kinds of reminiscences. Although Proust extracts some profound artistic effects from this, there is nothing specific to art in such a reaction. A pastry is as good and important as a painting by Vermeer. (Mr. Imago Asthetik)
But did Proust specify who had made that pastry and did he say that his reminiscences might follow dunking that specific pastry and none other? That's how a dunked pastry is different from a painting. >Bernstein foregrounds a series of features in order to delineate a new set of experiental possibilities that an overly broad way of seeing covers over. What else can I say on the matter, without confabulating? (Mr. Imago Asthetik) And as Ms. Sullivan has suggested, how can we know whether you and Bernstein have not already been confabulating? Only by looking at the painting ourselves. And even if we then agree with you and Bernstein, how can we know whether all three of us have not just been sharing the same confabulation? I would suggest that an aesthetics without confabulation, is an aesthetics that is so purely theoretical that it doesn't need actual contact with any works of art to be practiced. BTW - were you looking at an actual Dutch painting (not a reproduction) when you realized that Bernstein had changed your way of seeing them? And if so , may I ask which one? ____________________________________________________________ Save on a home Heating and Cooling System. Click Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxRuw1vcdcHzZQMYVAEwrxUvT r5GqMGOlzlo3DhL96puOCNSgXOYTG/
