Today's NYT profile on Jeff Koons quotes him on art as "lets you kind of control physiology and the secretions that take place within the body." This is the sort of statement that causes so many to regard Koons as a jokester. However, the statement is not at odds with the ideas of Antonio Damasio, at least as far as feelings are concerned. See my comment below .
Another thing about Koons is he is not ironic in his talk about art or his own aims and demeanor. He always comes across as completely sincere and whatever doubts he evokes belong to the listener or his audience and their skepticism. I have talked to him and he's exactly what he seems to be, a thoroughly decent fellow, caring, modest, open. He's curated a show opening in mid March at Gagosian NYC (Madison Ave.) devoted to my late friend Ed Paschke. I was invited to the show and the opening night dinner but am not up to travel yet. I urge NYC listers to see that show. And, again, to consider Damasio in relation to art and aesthetics. Aesthetics presumes sincerity and while most art nowadays is anything but sincere, artists like Koons help to restore it. If we don't see it in his work, we aren't looking closely. wc ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: William Conger <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, February 27, 2010 8:52:11 PM Subject: Re: N.K. Smith's "Here I stand" For years I've been touting Antonio Damasio's books to our list. His Descartes' Error was first published in 1994. Checking that date in my now yellowing paperback edition, I am a little shocked that more than fifteen years have passed since then. Oliver Sacks said,"Descartes' Error is a fascinating exploration of the biology of reason and its inseparable dependence on emotion". I urge all to read this book and Damasio's later books that further develop the thesis of combined reason-emotion/feeling. Damasio does distinguish between emotions and feelings, saying the latter are expressions of the former and are always responses to body-states. Thus feelings have their origin in the brain's continual monitoring of the body, and essentially of its brain state of pleasure and pain (like Michael's fear/safety?) He is not superficial or generalizing and examines his topic in detail. I can't summarize his thesis except to say that thinking and reasoning are interdependent in multiple ways despite the distinct initial source for each in the brain. He backs up his claims through extensive clinical work, mostly devoted to the study of people who have suffered various brain lesions. Although Damasio is not easy to follow, especially when he discusses intricate neural pathways and brain functions, unavoidably using technical terms, his writing is accessible and fluid. I think we absolutely cheat ourselves in efforts to understand aesthetics, and how aesthetic feelings through rationality enable us to call them such, if we ignore the breakthrough's in neurological and biological science. Damasio is also saying that since his books don't avoid connecting his science to philosophical concepts. Thus Descartes' Error, and then, his Looking for Spinoza, and his The Feeling of What Happens. I don't want to be evangelistic but I can't see how the philosophy of art can proceed without the findings of people like Damasio and certainly Oliver Sacks. wc . William wrote: "I just can't understand why some of us keep insisting on a balance of thought and feeling. The distinction is over, gone, eliminated by recent neurological research and controlled lab testing." Can you explain? Again? I got as far as Leibnitz and had to stop. Kate Sullivan
