Not all. Boris Shoshensky
---------- Original Message ---------- From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Changing my mind about the way I look at art Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 21:23:54 -0700 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! >>
