mando wrote; On Nov 13, 2009, at 9:30 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
> Where was the logic,argument, evidence, or persuasion when > William called > Mando's aesthetic response to 'The Bar at the Follies Bergere' "truly > funny"? > > Perhaps he would like to offer it now -- but I doubt that he can, > except > perhaps to backtrack and re-contextualize his remark, just as Saul > cautiously > backed off from his initial response to Mando: "Boy are you out of > the loop" > > The fact is that William and Saul, as well as Mando, Chris, and > Boris, are > occasionally convinced that their personal judgments are correct > even if they > are unable to convince a skeptic that "certain properties of that > thing are in > fact beautiful" > The truth is, that, what we see as beautiful," Is beautiful" to each one of us, individually. That is based on our individual mind's experiences of beauty. The more one experiences, the more "subjective" judgments one makes. If beauty was in the object, we would not have be discussing aesthetics. Science would have settled that long ago, and they may, yet. mando > Because the judgment of beauty cannot always be reached by > whatever "sharable > elements are in the art object or contained by a definition of > aesthetic > experience or in some cultural experience termed aesthetic or an > organic > relationship between the elements in the art object and the cultural > experience of it." > > Although, there's nothing wrong with trying, and I do agree that > exclusively > aphoristic assertions can be tiresome, and should be the last > resort instead > of the first. > > > ................... > > >> What Miller now calls aesthetics is nothing but unexamined >> personal opinion. > If the question of aesthetics is simply reduced to unexamined and > therefore > unarguable solipsistic opinions, then why even discuss the subject > or even > mention it at all? When something is so personal, so subjective, > as to vanish > as a topic of inquiry even as it's mentioned, then it really > doesn't exist as > something that can be discussed. But Miller goes even further to > equate this > unexamined personal solipsism as the only identifier of art (as > opposed to his > use of the term "fashion"), which, if we dare to apply logic, > requires us to > admit that art cannot be mentioned, let alone identified > independently of the > solipsist. The alternative to this dead-end sort of thinking is to > argue that > there is some sharable, something public, about both aesthetics and > art. So > what is that? One position is that the sharable elements are in > the art > object > or contained by a definition of aesthetic experience. Another is > that the > sharable element is in some > cultural experience termed aesthetic; and the third position argues > for an > organic relationship between the elements in the art object and the > cultural > experience of it. Miller's position is outside of any arena of > discussion > because its authenticity requires absolute isolation, absolute > solipsism. But > this is his position on many issues. He's quite content to defend > it by > simply demanding that he is right. A few others here, such as > Mando and > Boris, > follow the same formula for credibility. They make aphoristic > assertions. > There's no logic, no argument, no evidence, no persuasion. In > logic it's > called the Appeal to Authority. It has its self-serving place, I > suppose, in > some fundamentalist religions, totalitarian regimes, slavery, prisons, > advertising, but the whole tradition of intellectual civilization, > it has no > place. > > ____________________________________________________________ > Weight Loss Program > Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c? > cp=S2OsazVCxYf4XHHhBXvD0wAAJz6c > l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAA > A=
