Miller's grabbing for straws. When Miller reduces his views of aesthetics to a solipsistic. "either you get it your you don't" we might as well conclude that the aesthetics list is a sham and a waste of time. If all topics can be simplified to the most naive level which is then simply proclaimed a universal truth, we are in a ludicrous situation.
The only way to get past pointless assertions of subjectivity in aesthetics, without any argued position, is to engage in the dialogue surrounding one or two serious contributors, I mean recognized philosophers who have published extensive papers on some aspect of aesthetics. All positions have strengths and weaknesses. Or, one might make a divide, separating modernist aesthetics --the product of the Enlightenment and the search for rational truth -- from postmodernism -- the situational approach to aesthetics. We have to know what side we are talking about in any instance, or at least we need to know what the implications and limits of the chosen premises are. If you argue that art is embodied in the object, then you are arguing a modernist aesthetic whether or not you choose it to be centered in idea of form. If you argue that art is not in the object but in some relation between an audience, individual or societal, and uses of symbols, then you are more engaged in postmodern aesthetics. Nowadays, many artists are interested in relational aesthetics in which the art "object" is some sort of social interaction prompted (loosely or meticulously) by the 'artist". That's a developing sort of postmodernism. Although the path from modernism to postmodernism may be unbroken, we do need to realize that at some point we have passed from one sphere to another. The same aesthetic will not fully serve both. Thankfully, despite Miller's despairing retreat to solipsism, there is much to discuss. WC ________________________________ From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 10:06:59 AM Subject: dead photos- alive paintings According to William, both paintings and photographs "obscure some information that is "filled in" by the viewer", and if we questioned him a bit further, I'm sure he would admit that the human mind does some "filling in" when looking at anything. Is more being "filled in" when viewing a room, a photograph of same, or a painting by either Meissonier or Monticelli? How can such a thing be measured? Doesn't it depend on who is doing the viewing and what they are looking for? This issue has nothing to do with either aesthetic value or the difference between painting and photography. Regarding "dead photos- alive paintings", I was speaking metaphorically -- but come to think of it -- a form can be considered as 'alive' in the same way as a virus. It can only reproduce itself within another life form, i.e. a human mind. I suppose we can note that styles of photography are reproduced from one generation of photographers to another - so in that sense, photographic form is alive. But there can be a certain quality to the drawn form, in either drawing, painting, or sculpture, that is completely outside the facture of photography. I can't prove the presence or importance of this quality. Like so much else in aesthetics, you either see it or you don't. ____________________________________________________________ Click here for easy weight loss help and diet information. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxYFS6U5TR1NofKhFGzpcqPzf aunUPAqzYUGrz79t46MEUCGw4gfWw/
