"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."
I don't think it is like the god question. Art can be experienced (sensed) physically, God not. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Rational Discussion and aesthetic quality Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:44:42 -0700 (PDT) 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. ________________________________ From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 11:14:43 AM Subject: Re: Rational Discussion and aesthetic quality Or -- perhaps we just have different perceptions? In the realm of aesthetics, all people should rely on themselves for all proofs. Otherwise, like Michael, they have nothing to contribute but conformity and occasional angry, desparate demands that others conform as well. William finds it shocking that I find Ansel Adams' photographs to be muddy -- while I find many of his statements (especially about post-modernism) to be shocking as well. Whose dinner party is it ? And who are the impudent children? BTW - authority is very important to scientific projects because it establishes facts. Those facts may, in the future, be disproven, but while they stand, ongoing science must either account for them or disprove them. >Miller relies on himself for all proofs. He is the supreme authority. He can ramble on with his severely cramped opinions (Ansel Adams' work is "muddy", etc) and make wild assertions that to him bolster his anti-modernist iconoclasm, which is his prime reason for getting up in the morning. Above all, Miller wants attention and like the impudent kid at the dinner party, he will say whatever snide thing he can to upset the adults at the table. Trouble is, both the child and the adult are Miller himself. You can share his opinion or not and if you share them Miller will immediately take them to some ludicrous extreme of childish stubbornness in order to assure his opinion will not be shared. Therein lies the paradox of Miller. He writes to enlist allies but whenever they appear too close he pulls away again with some newly hatched iconoclastic absurdity. His goal is to be completely alone with his self-justifying opinions. An crumpled and angry inner self is demanding the full-attention of his social self and will ruin any "party" to get it. (WC) >Miller wrongly equates scientific inquiry with appeals to authority. Actually the two are polar opposites. (WC) > ____________________________________________________________ Get free information on how to save on a Hawaiian vacation. Click Here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxVg7Fkx7jVCFICmET2UITbe7 nuqiVAqmwONfZYvrBMhaYSB1MfPWI/
