"if some A is B, and if all B is C, thus some A is C." "A is seeing, B is filling-in, C is aesthetic judgment." (WC)
How can all of "filling-in" be "aesthetic judgment" ? Aren't there many moments when we do a lot of careful seeing and filling-in without any concern for aesthetic judgment at all? (for example: while driving a car on a busy street) That's why I mis-construed William's syllogism when he first presented it, as I assumed that "C" was "filling-in". Perhaps syllogisms cannot be constructed with words like 'seeing', 'filling-in", and 'aesthetic judgment' -- since they are so resistant to definable, shareable interpretation.. Especially the phrase "aesthetic judgment", where, like William, I am 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." And yet still, I think it's necessary to make aesthetic judgments and share them with each other. I might even call such an activity foundational to the human project. Regarding one such judgment, William has been bold enough to explain his preference for Jacques Louis David over Thomas Kinkade. Thank you! It's a fine explanation - and I don't want to discourage him from offering any more - but examples of such facture (underpainting scarcely wiped with paint) can be found in many European paintings, both good and bad, from the 15th C. and thereafter. It can even be found within the torso of this little fellow as painted by Mr. Kinkade: http://www.thomaskinkadegallery.com/painting.php?id=468 (which also includes that provocative Modern/post-Modern feature of placing text, some of which is untranslatable, within the image) While we can also find examples of what we might judge great painting where this facture is not used at all: http://www.abstract-art.com/abstraction/l2_Grnfthrs_fldr/g018_ryder_marine.ht ml I'm also sure that terrible paintings can be found where the artist twirled the paint just so, building it up here and there like clumps of bloody mud in sunlight, to let you imagine the quagmire of emotions at war with themselves in the people he painted." But please don't ask me to start looking for them! (actually -- it's quite easy - I can just walk through the storage racks at my art club) Which brings us back to the original topic of this thread "Live Paintings - dead photographs", and my assertion that there is a quality of liveliness - or vitality - or "chi energy" -- that can be created by the painter but not the photogra;pher. Not to say that some photographs are far, far better than others -- and that photographs have no positive aesthetic value. But they can't accommodate the kind of aesthetic immersion which good paintings and drawings can. Not because they offer less of an opportunity for "filling-in" But because the photographer cannot draw a line or fine tune an edge, hue, or tone. ____________________________________________________________ Shop & save on the supplements you want. Click now! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxZ1pHjMt1Z4oFTqkUmh7LCg6 yOiPKsi0ObWdVYvIoHVlc9sE5BJBW/
