I agree that one's instinctive aesthetic emotion upon perceiving
anything is based on
one's bias, knowledge and experience of that thing.
mando
On Sep 12, 2009, at 1:29 PM, William Conger wrote:
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.
