In addition to it's philosophic use, the term "aesthetics" is also used in
reference to personal beauty products, treatments and care. Does google
tell us whether it is the philosophy salon or beauty salon use that is
changing?
Mike Mallory
----- Original Message -----
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:41 PM
Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art
I think we all should know that according to the google Ngram viewer
the use of the wros aesthetics dropped sharply between 1995 and now in
printed sources. So they're callling it something else. What could that
be?
Kate Sullivan
-----Original Message-----
From: William Conger <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Fri, Dec 17, 2010 12:47 pm
Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art
OK. Boris does not want to examine the idea but to reject it on
solipsistic
grounds. Maybe it's because he resents any implication that
free-individualism
is shaped by cultural habits. I don't have a clue as to what the
mumbo-jumbo
regarding evolution means except everything changes.
----- Original Message ----
From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Fri, December 17, 2010 11:18:22 AM
Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art
William's challenge on artists is incorrect, in my case. I did not have
any
info on John Marin or Demuth before I saw the work and instantly was
intrigued by the talent. If I was only influenced by institutional or
cultural
canon I would not appreciate mostly unknown folk arts of different
cultures,
including music and dance, and would like crap dominating present
institutionalized culture. I am cold to Warhol and many others
regardless
'experts' praises.
I was fascinated by Russian Avant-Guard instantly, being very young and
uneducated in modernity which was forbidden to be shown even in print
in the
USSR.
Before I go to the second question I have to correct your distortion of
my
phrase which changes the meaning of what I said.
I said I believe in objective criteria not standards. There is a
difference,
for me.
My use of 'I believe' is different from 'I have belief'.
It is 'I know', but subjectively, because it based on my professional
observations and not on cold scientific research.
Independent criteria of beauty is its anti-entropic organizational
quality
leading to the evolutional progress of matter and mind.
Boris Shoshensky
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:52:37 -0800 (PST)
Boris;
Your comments seem to confirm my argument that we tend to prefer the art
we've
been told is good, not only by individuals in our midst but by the
canonic
standards of art history. All to the artists you mention are artists
whose
work
has been widely, even universally, discussed as excellent within the
canon of
Western art. So how can you be sure your opinions of that work are free
from
institutional and cultural influence that even predetermine those
opinions?
I
say you can't.
Further, I am puzzled by your statement that you "believe" in objective
standards of beauty and thought. If such standards exist why is it
necessary
to
believe in them? Ordinarily we distinguish between believing and
knowing.
Believing is accepting something as true without sufficient independent
evidence where as knowing is a result of validating independent
evidence.
For
instance we can say we "believe" that a human has an immortal soul but
we
"know"
that human life is mortal.
Needless to say, I'd be interested in what those independent criterion
of
beauty
in art and thought are. So far, it seems that no one in history has
ever
identified them.
WC
----- Original Message ----
From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thu, December 16, 2010 11:28:55 AM
Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art
I have seen Durer, English of 19Th c., Rodin, Sargent, Homer, Marin,
Cezanne.
I don't need experts to appreciate all of them in different
ways. I believe in objective criterias of beauty in art and thought.
Boris Shoshensky
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 13:08:26 -0800 (PST)
What watercolors had you seen before seeing Nolde's? But then you are
one of
the experts anyway.
wc
----- Original Message ----
From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, December 15, 2010 1:43:35 PM
Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art
Holistic approach to art and art history.
Nobody taught me to love Nolde's watercolors.
Boris Shoshensky
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:55:57 -0800 (PST)
He wasn't lucky. A few recognized his genius and had the power to
spread his
fame through word (see Vasari) and deeds (see papal patronage). His
universal
fame came after that, not always so quickly (the first reception of his
David
was negative among crowds). It's the same process as now: excellence
accorded
by the few, later, maybe, by the many who mostly learned from or
imitated the
few. I don't know of a case (in Western art history) in which it was
other
way
around. Maybe you do.
wc
Then how came Michelangelo is so lucky?
Boris Shoshensky
