This is getting really stupid. I said that the demands of intellectual rigor are limited to logic. I did not say that emotional expression was disregarded in aesthetic judgment. If you want to explain something to another, you rely on logic to construct your thoughts and conclusions. That does not restrict the content. Nor does it limit the associational because that, too, can reveal a logic. Actually some facts can be considered re painting and the arts in general. Usually an analysis of an artwork begins with a review of its material facts. They are relevant, to a degree, in forming a judgment but they are not the whole game.
Beauty is never a fact. If Miller has a definition of beauty he might be able to construct a logical argument supporting his view. But it won't be a fact. The only fact will be that Miller has constructed a definition of beauty. That is still different from it being a true definition even though it could be a logically correct one. I wonder if this is too nuanced for Miller? wc ________________________________ From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 3:12:43 PM Subject: Re: Rational Discussion and aesthetic quality Emotion is a very large consideration in aesthetic judgement ,to me. mando On Sep 12, 2009, at 7:37 AM, Chris Miller wrote: > What do the rest of you think of William's manifesto? > > Do you all agree that "the demands of intellectual rigor are essentially > limited to logic." ? > > What kind of "facts based on observation and measurement" can be established > regarding paintings, poetry, musical performances and such? > > Is the beauty of a drawing or melody one such fact? > > This is a fine opportunity for you lurkers out there to de-cloak and address > some basic questions about aesthetics. > > > ............................................................................. > ............................................................................. > .. > > > >> I hate carrying on with my disagreements with Miller. But my great failing > is > to be drawn to the fire as a moth to the flame. > > Aesthetics is a field of inquiry in philosophy and the philosophy of art. It > has a tradition and a body of literature. It is discussed for the sake of > finding common ground on particular questions. If Miller wants to redefine > the > field so narrowly that there is absolutely nothing to discuss except to pass > around unexamined personal opinions then he is opting for a mode of discourse > that could be exercised with grunts and not words. I find it humorous that > he > makes a universal claim for something that he insists is totally individual. > How can "all people" be obliged to do something that he insists is the > prerogative of each person's perception? > > Agreement on intellectual views is not conformity in the usual sense because > conformity implies agreement in the absence of inquiry, as, for example, when > people conform to laws they neither question nor think about but simply > enfold > into their behavior. I think the proper word would be consensus, which > implies > that agreement is obtained among a group while individual differences are > respected. > > The demands of intellectual rigor are essentially limited to logic. Logic is > essential to reaching an objective view of anything, whether or not the > content > of the argument is true or false. Then facts based on observation and > measurement are examined for their truth or falsity and in this area there is > room for contentious dissent. Some facts may be wrongly observed or > measured, > some may irrelevant, some may be unknown or change in the course of being > observed or measured. Contrary to Miller's comment, scientific facts are not > established by authority but by observation and experiment. The scientific > method provides a check on authority. Nothing is settled in science simply > because of authority. We've all heard of scientists' "new discoveries" in > science that are not accepted because the experiments and observations that > led > to them cannot de duplicated by others, Again, that's a check on authority, > no > matter who it is. Again, facts do not > rest on authority in our scientific era. In the past, facts did rest solely > on > authority and power. > > Granted that aesthetics is not science, not yet, and granted that opinion and > personal experience plays a huge role in aesthetic judgment, so far as we > know > from comparison to other types of experience. But in aesthetic discourse, > elementary logic is still required to enable people to follow arguments and > attention to what others have said on the aesthetic topic at hand is prudent. > > So far, Miller has never been able to tell us what his aesthetic subjectivity > is. He is only interested in negating what others have offered, finally > finding unassailable refuge in his requirement that all aesthetic judgment is > individual, and therefore non-communicable at all. If you say you have a > treasure hidden in your closet but no one can see it and you refuse to > describe > it or to enable others to value it in any way how do you "prove" that you > have > the treasure at all? Ironically, unknowingly, Miller is taking a postmodern > position, that art is anything at all, maybe even nothing. Lots of > contemporary "art" aims to question whether or not art can exist, not only in > historical terms regarding quality and object-hood, but in experiential > terms, > both individually and socially. It's sort of like the god question. If god > exists, the option that he does not exist is necessary. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click to get the coolest ring tones on your phone, fast and easy > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxTAa9yUZCJiJZe70Xpjuak5T > ynNNtT2hPxJEG25DZr7L0vzgSp1ZG/
