Normally, i read all the horoscopes every day and pick the best one.
But today, mine said,"Try to get in touch with one or two older
relatives
you haven't seen in a while" woooooo...... I'm the only one remaining.
And i don't think they are measurable any more.
mando
On Nov 29, 2009, at 2:36 PM, William Conger wrote:
I agree that Dutton has slipped in over his head on this point.
Most people spend a lot of time with dead people through their
memories, reading, looking, learning, etc. Nothing that actively
stirs the mind is dead. Nothing "in" the mind is dead unless the
brain (a thing having extension) is dead.
Again, Dutton can't make the distinction between what's real and
objective and what ain't. If it's real and objective it takes up
space. It has extension. That's about it. Everything else is
subjective. Dead people are objective and measurable. Their ideas
are not, except in symbolic form, as things representing the dead
person. When we consider objective things, when we sense them, we
are dealing with them subjectively however much we try to modify
and limit it by reference to the objective state. His failure to
recognize that simple fact flaws all of his work.
wc
----- Original Message ----
From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, November 29, 2009 3:45:40 PM
Subject: Re: Reading Dutton: Chapter 10 - Four Characteristics of
Great Art
"Evolution could only require that an artist impress the people
he knows,
and
Dutton does suggest that the human attraction for the art of dead
people is
flagrantly counter-evolutionary."
All suggestions in this statement are ambiguous therefore highly
questionable. Evolution requires nothing. Requirements to survive
create
process we call 'evolution'. There is no such thing as counter-
evolution; even
death.
Boris Shoshensky
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Reading Dutton: Chapter 10 - Four Characteristics of
Great Art
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 15:12:57 GMT
In his discussion of intention (Chapter 8), Dutton did not deny
that "The
design or intention of the author is neither available nor
desirable as a
standard for judging the success of a work of literary
art" (Beardsley), he
just gives two instances, from literature, when intention must be
known
(irony and anachronism) plus the "ever present" issue that
involves the
identity of the author.
But further speculations concerning intention do seem unavoidable
in each of
his four characteristics of great art, especially #3 ("Purpose - a
sense
that
the artist means it) and #4 (Distance: "There is a cool
objectivity about
the
greatest works of art: the worlds they create have little direct
regard for
our insistent wants and needs; still less do they show any
intention on the
part of their creators to ingratiate themselves to us")
And he certainly did not require that great art "somehow symbolize
ambiguity,
too" by offering an "open ended potential for enlivened subjective
experience
for both the artist and his/her audience."
(but why should he, if he agrees with William that "Anything is
infinitely
complex or simple, as one chooses"? How can such an assertion be
denied?)
Does this mean that Dutton is proposing that a great work of art
is " a
machine intended to perform certain operations or a set of
directions" ?
That would make works of art seem a bit cold, limited and
mechanistic,
unless
we allow that they are significantly different from all the other
things that
we call machines.
But perhaps, according to Dutton, they are, since nowhere does he
suggest
that a great work of art "is intended to lead one to a particular
goal." --
instead, he's only listing certain kinds goals that should be
apparent if we
are going to call something "great"
Does he "require the artist to have foreseen the broadest and most
profound
symbolization of subject matter, style, etc". ?
Evolution could only require that an artist impress the people he
knows,
and
Dutton does suggest that the human attraction for the art of dead
people is
flagrantly counter-evolutionary.
But his "four characteristics of great art" would seem to require
that
artists present the "the broadest and most profound symbolization
of subject
matter, style, etc". in order to achieve greatness, though he never
uses the
word, 'symbolization', and he's such an easy going, amenable
fellow, it's
hard
to imagine him requiring anyone to do anything.
Which is to say that Dutton would prefer to let evolved human
instincts do
the
requiring, so he can be a cheerful scientist instead of a demanding,
proscriptive art critic
......................................................................
.......
..................
Intentionality is workable in mechanistic ways, such as machine
is intended
to
perform certain operations or a set of directions is intended to
lead one to
a
particular goal. Even artworks can express intentionality and as
they are
recognized so they might lead to some particular knowledge or
experience.
But
what of the associative thoughts, experiences, etc., surrounding those
intentions, despite their being hidden, ignored or overlooked? We
can never
say that they are fully irrelevant to our experience even when they
may deter
us from the supposed correct intentions.
If I notice the artist's intentions that guided the making of art,
what am I
supposed to do with them except to follow them as a set of directions,
presumably to lead me to some subjective experience that imitates
that of the
artist? I suggest that this possible only in general terms, in
superficial
terms, if not actually banal terms. No one can fully convey his or
her
subjectivity to another because, obviously, subjectivity is not
