Haha. But you must have memories of them since you know who they were. So in that sense they're symbolically alive but as corpses are likely without much extension. Same is true for all my older, and quite a few younger, relatives.
wc ----- Original Message ---- From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, November 29, 2009 6:24:58 PM Subject: Re: Reading Dutton: Chapter 10 - Four Characteristics of Great Art 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
