I find myself filling in when I see, hear,think,taste, smell
something nostalgic or a vague anything, to me.
mando
On Sep 5, 2009, at 2:50 PM, William Conger wrote:
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/
