Chris writes: > According to William, both paintings and photographs "obscure some > information that is "filled in" by the viewer". > Is more being "filled in" when viewing a room, a photograph of same, or a > painting by either Meissonier or Monticelli? > 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. > That last sentence gives me pause. I know I personally prize those works -- paintings, poems, etc -- that, when I contemplate them, occasion in me many sorts of notion -- feelings, thoughts, images -- some of which arise almost inexplicably .
I don't accept that the only thing I, the viewer, am contributing is "information" when a work occasions in me, say, an aesthetic experience. Loosely speaking, I'd say I also contribute "imagination", and even, to varying degrees, sheer "responsiveness". There are some sorts of works where I'm aware that all around me are people who bring a more superb "instrument" to their contemplations. For what it's worth, I offer an attackable image: Think of the artist as a pianist, his fingers' product as the words/visual-images/ dance-moves etc that he offers, and the responding apparatus within you as the piano: some pianos are of such exquisite construction they yield up far more thrilling vibrations than the next instrument. Going back to Chris's comment -- "has nothing to do with aesthetic value" -- I'd first try to make clear that what's at issue is "aesthetic value FOR ME". I don't agree that anything has absolute "aesthetic value". And then I'd insist that, to put it loosely, the very thing at issue is this: the amount and desirability of what the work causes me to "fill in".
