Mr Miller, The difference between confabulation and argument is well established. The former is a process well known to psychology that occurs in the absence of an individuals lack of any knowledge concerning the proximate cause or motivation of a given (usually bodily) phenomenon (a physical reaction, a desire, an urge and impulse, or a recreation of a series of experiences). Mr conger has already addressed this subject. The latter is well defined too. There is no conflation of them on my part. To suggest that the only way to be certain whether confabulation has occurred is to consult the proximate cause of the phenomenon being explained is to fundamentally misunderstand what I have been saying. Again: confabulation only occurs when the proximate cause is unknown. Hence, one would have to be advocating a causal theory and presuppose that there is a unique relationship between a given artwork and every viewer, which provides the basis for adjudicating among descriptions, etc. Such a position is false.
I do not think your argument for the difference between a pastry and a Vermeer is compelling either, since you point to features that are incidental (name of creator being a fine instance thereof). The point, what one would have to prove, is that artworks have a unique causal power to produce a unique kind of experience. They do not possess such a power, and so one cannot successfully essay the kind of argument you have outlined below. Finally, I find your repeated questioning after whether I have actually seen a painting by De Hooch to be rather distasteful. In the first instance, one would have thought that my attempt not to answer this question in the first place would have made it amply clear that I am not inclined to answer it at all. Out of politeness, one would have refrained from pressing the issue. Unless there is some great insight to be gleaned from whether I have actually 'experienced' an original De Hooch. The lack of any explanation for this repeated query implies something less than felicitous on your part. Explain to me what difference this makes in the present context, Mr Miller, and, should I find your explanation compelling, I will answer your. As the matter stands, my sense is that you are trying to nitpick in a completely unproductive matter by bringing up issues that have little to no significance in the present context. Honestly, sincerely, what difference does it make in our present context if we were to take it on good faith that I have actually seen, perhaps on a Visit to New Yorks Metropolitan Museum of art, or perhaps at the staatliche Kunsthalle Karlsruhe, or maybe even at the Louvre, several paintings by De Hooch, rather than to assume that I have seen only reproductions? Why is this even an issue? What would an honest answer illuminate? All this aside, I am happy to see this discussion blossoming. So many voices! On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Chris Miller <[email protected]>wrote: > >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/
