How does it occur that some aspects of sensory experience are not relevant to aesthetics? Which drop of water in the ocean is irrelevant to the ocean being defined as such?
And, tediously, once again it helps to remind Miller that seeing is constructed. That mean that we "imagine" what we "see". Some call it "seeing in" or "make believe" and it always entails associative or re-remembered constructions which sometimes are called "metaphorical". Yes, in this sense there is no difference between the experiencing of a photograph and a painting. Miller's funny idea that the aesthetic experience can't rely on a universal aspect of seeing actually undercuts his own view. For one, it shifts the necessary element of aesthetics away from the process of experiencing to something else external to it. Second, the something external to the experience must be either the object itself or some pre-ordained requirements independent of both the object and experiencing it. Third, since Miller rejects the object as the necessary element, he must therefore claim some pre-ordained requirements. What are they? And then, in some leap of fancy, he concludes that whatever those requirements are, they only fit applications to painting. That's how he decides that the aesthetic is "alive" in painting and "dead" in photography. Magic! Was that too obscure? OK, let's turn to basic logic: If some part of an aesthetic judgment of a visual thing relies on seeing, and if all seeing requires "filling in" (and if "filling in" is the same as constructing and "seeing-in" ), then some part of the aesthetic judgment is "filling in". Or, if some A is B, and if all B is C, thus some A is C. wc wc ________________________________ From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 8:26:53 AM Subject: Re: dead photos- alive paintings I proposed that the potential for "filling in" (by the viewer) was irrelevant to the aesthetic value (of the object) because there is no limit to how much "filling in" one can do with anything. (and likewise irrelevant to the difference between a painting and a photograph) Here is one my favorite works in a current show at the Art Institute: http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/exhibitions/BeyondGoldenClouds/artwork/1 91638 (by Kaiho Yusho, 1602) ... and here is a shot of one of the screens: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_u_KW4nuKg9k/SllSR6IJ85I/AAAAAAAAKm4/YpseyN2QvUM/s16 00-h/screen503.jpg A rather minimal amount of information, wouldn't you say? That boat, and its passengers, is about 5 brush strokes. So if you enjoy this image, you might be tempted to say that your enjoyment was consequent of how much was left for you to fill in. Until, that is, you saw another painting of similar minimal depiction that was not as good -- or another painting, full of details, that was just as good. Can't you find such? Can't everyone ? This emphasis on "filling in" is just another attempt to replace aesthetic evaluation with perceptual pseudo-science. Regarding your "attackable image" of the artist as pianist and the viewer as piano, yes, I do attack it as the province of popular entertainment. I don't want to be played. Do you? I want the artist to show me what is important to himself, not to a target audience. >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". (Cheerskep) ____________________________________________________________ Shop & save on the supplements you want. Click now! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxZ1pGyHpBacxW0hTogTtW5To JT5fvmwHWksOodV4arH4IEBZ9ATwk/
