Why do we still want to make our experience of art one dimensional - and why does this either/or logic persist - empirically and pragmatically we do many things with that which we call art and that which we call art makes many different demands on us individually as well as collectively - each has their own experience and intentions - the real question as always is to identify - the qualities of the thing from those of the perceiver - what is there versus how one might understand it - and what does that thing tell us about our selves, our perception and cognition of the world and our modeling of knowledge, our capacity to understand, etc
On 8/31/09 9:08 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: In a message dated 8/31/09 8:45:56 AM, [email protected] writes: > The description is post-hoc and entirely linear in time, whereas the > experience of a painting is simultaneous and instantly polyvalent. > But it takes time to look at something,sometimes hours or days, and you can remember what you thouhgt you saw at one point and then at another. You don't just look at something and see it all at once. The first seeing of something is an impression, a burst, and while you should remember that burst, it isn't the whole thing. I might think that I don't want to look at something but that's "don't want", not "that's terrible". Conversely I might want to look at something and then be disappointed on further acquaintance. Kate Sullivan ************** A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222846709x1201493018/aol?redir=http ://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072& hmpgID=115&bcd=JulystepsfooterNO115) --
