> Why are both of you so tight lipped?
I cannot speak for Mr Ostrow, but in my case it is only because I do not find there to be much of interest in such a description. Mr Conger or Mr Brady, I believe, wrote that artworks explode into ones consciousness with a certain instantaneity that does not allow the kind of narrativization (this, and then THIS, AND THEN THIS, etc) you keep asking after. If anything, it strikes me that you are not even interested in a narrative of the experience, as much as you are a chronological list of judgement forms (or more minimally of linguistically structured responses). I do not find that interesting or probative. I have a rather analytical bend in the way I think and see. It is neither particularly amenable to narrativisation, nor to grocery list-like itemization. Nor should it matter really. What matters, I take it, are the insights that can be shared among us, and that is (1) a question of 'seeing' in the sense Berger discusses, and (2) of presenting these insights to others. It seems to me that your emphasis fails on both counts. You ask why these differences are important, and I can only say > that, recalling my own experiences, they have been. Yes, fine. And so much depends upon red wheelbarrows covered in rain too. The point is that this is not an argument or an explanation. It does not identify *why* the differences between recollection, direct experience, reproduction and original, *are* important. Saying that they are because they are is not a very compelling explanation or argument. I can no more prove the importance of these distinctions to you, than I can prove that Sanford Robinson Gifford is a much,much, much better painter than Thomas Kinkade. I think this is simply a refusal. 'Can't' here means 'won't try to.' If you think that something is better than something else, you can always give reasons for it. Whether these reasons are themselves cogent, perceptive, etc. is another matter. And you seem to be happy to not worry too much about it. Fair enough. But this also means that there is little point continuing the discussion. Once we have exchanged our likes and dislikes, and some list of things we said to ourselves while looking at something, we have exhausted the matter. Thus concludes our discussion. Many thanks. On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Chris Miller <[email protected]>wrote: > In aesthetics, it's not just the cause that gets confabulated, Mr. > Asthetik. > > It's the effect as well - as Mr. Conger has suggested with his discussion > of > how our minds stitch together images from the furtive, fleeting phenomena > that pass before our eyes. > > How can one confabulation be judged better than another? This is a > question > for which argument cannot provide any definitive answers. > > And so we're left with describing our confabulations as best we can - and > yes, > I do think that there is a unique relationship between a given artwork and > every viewer. Perhaps not for the insensitive, disinterested, or dimwitted, > but among those who cultivate an active interest in such things. > > Which is also why I wish that you (and now Saul) would provide as much > detail > as you can regarding the examples that you have given regarding the > instances > when you "changed your mind about the way I look at art" Why are both of > you > so tight lipped? (though, I do appreciate that you both are offering so > much > more than others, who feel, perhaps, that such revelations may damage the > authoritative postures which they cultivate so carefully) > > Were you changing your mind about some work of art as you remember it? Or > as > you were, at that moment, seeing it? > Or, as you were, at that moment, seeing it in reproduction? > > You ask why these differences are important, and I can only say that, > recalling my own experiences, they have been. > > (and that's why I will never move to a city that doesn't have a big art > museum, and keep building a collection of reproductions of things that > can't > be found there) > > But I can no more prove the importance of these distinctions to you, than I > can prove that Sanford Robinson Gifford is a much,much, much better > painter > than Thomas Kinkade. > > You either see such a difference --- or you don't. > > > ********************************************************* > ******* > > > > 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! > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Handyman Franchises. Click Here. > > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxaAgveBKpe5E7y0sRxmhLnXa > fiVzFSU7xSW1l9OYBd4jEmVhSilZu/
