A is seeing, B is filling-in, C is aesthetic judgment. The syllogism shows that some part of seeing, A, involves filling-in, B, and aesthetic judgment, C, is partly the result of filling-in. The relationship between A and B is validated by science; the relationship between B and C assumes that C exists. No one can be certain that aesthetic judgment, C, in fact is a specific cognitive function.
I don't think any judgment is pure, by which I mean that there is no "innocent" eye. We are all affected in our judgments by preconceptions, received opinion, desires for approval or opposition, which by themselves or all together have little to do with judgment, including, especially, the richly invested, so-called aesthetic judgment. That's why in the syllogism, C, aesthetic judgment, turns out to be only partly determined by raw seeing, and then partly by "filling-in". To find the other "parts" one needs to investigate those other topics I've just mentioned, preconceptions, desires, etc. I'm not sure that the collection of parts in which only a few can be scientifically demonstrated and others are merely assumed, can add up to an objectively definable whole. I don't think so. If I'm right then no aesthetic judgment can be proven true except to one whose assumptions are pretended or taken to be objectively true. So, if Miller wants to convince me of his aesthetic judgment, or if I want to convince him of mine, then both of us would need to accept each other's "pretended" assumptions. That's ok as most human interactions rely on just that, aesthetics and everything else (I might say, aesthetics as everything else). I can't recall a single instance where I was able to accept all of Miller's assumed "parts" of aesthetic judgment, although I am sure there are many who could. wc ________________________________ From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2009 7:42:42 AM Subject: Re: dead photos- alive paintings >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) But can an aesthetic judgment be assembled from its parts? And can anything specific ever be said about part 'C' (filling-in)? If William believes so, then he should be able to provide us with an example from an aesthetic judgment that he has made. But William is rather shy about making judgments because the inevitable conclusion of this analytic approach is that judgments are not better than one another, their parts are just different. Is Jacques Louis David really a better painter than Thomas Kinkade? If so, what details of part 'C' would relate to that judgment? ____________________________________________________________ Click here to find the satellite television package that meets your needs. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxT9QtC1Nf1IYdiyoUeou0Vm6 EPUHBnvKW4fiBJ8wlSI27StIfK5A8/
