It's all in your mind and what it creates from perception of
the familiar or the unfamiliar.
mando
On Sep 1, 2009, at 8:58 PM, Boris Shoshensky wrote:
" 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."
I believe Arts do posses such a power and produce a unique kind of
experience.
Boris Shoshensky
---------- Original Message ----------
From: imago Asthetik <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Changing my mind about the way I look at art
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:04:35 -0400
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/
