Huh? The only books and authors Miller has mentioned lately are Rand and, ah, who? And artists? Chinese, most of them.
Oh, I forgot about the Nazi artists. And the Soviet "realists" and a few neglected sculptors. I've read thousands of books and have examined tens of thousands of artworks. My old brain has tossed aside so much. I can scarcely remember what's still bumbling around in my skull. But Miller is so acute, so informed, so reflective, so, well, so solipsistic. It amazes me that he now wants sources and examples. Is this an awakening? wc ________________________________ From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 9:42:18 AM Subject: Re: dead photos- alive paintings I am quite interested in people writing about the qualities that they see and I don't -- so I do not consider the discussion of aesthetics to be a sham or waste of time. I'm also interested in what philosophers have had to say, and will read along with any book that anyone wishes to discuss. (and have been quite happy to introduce a few myself) What doesn't interest me is the use of the passive voice, and subsequent debates over what is known, without reference to either personal experience or specific texts. That's what I find worthless, and that's what William is doing below, as he summarizes issues that he does exemplify, about artists whom he does not name, from texts that he does not discuss, while completely avoiding the issue that he introduced to this thread: "Dead photos - alive paintings" >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 ____________________________________________________________ Easy-to-use, advanced features, flexible phone systems. Click here for more info. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxcAB5QPRnmm94aXY4N1B12J4 FqRpAe0G677lgri3fVQYNrUvNdmxC/
