Where mind goes for 'food'. 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: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 08:17:37 -0700
If not there , where? On Sep 1, 2009, at 10:10 PM, Boris Shoshensky wrote: > 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
