On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 5:57 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with William about the "subjectivity" of art. There is no absolute, > mind-independent, ontic "quality" of "artness" up in Plato's heaven. Even > those who have been sufficiently involved in a genre to be called > "sophisticated" can disagree in their response to works in that genre. The > variety of > sensibility can be startling. It's astonishing how many highly literate > people profess disgust at Shakespeare. > > For me, the most interesting inquiry in aesthetics continues to be focused > on what I'll call the "aesthetic experience". I know even that phrase will > be disputed and rejected by some. But I'm fairly firm about saying I know > it > when I feel it. I'm convinced there are those who all their lives read > poetry, visit visual-art museums, listen to music, but who fail in one or > more of > the genres ever to have an "aesthetic experience". One can encounter a > bemused blankness when trying to convey what an "a.e." is like. It is > roughly > comparable to trying to convey the feeling of an orgasm in sex to those > who've > never had one. I've known warm people who have willingly indulged in sexual > play all their lives (It's friendly! It's "nice"!) but who persuasively > report they have never reached orgasm. >
Do you feel that an a.e. is supposed to be cathartic, i.e., provide a kind of purge? > > Luckily for me I've had what I call a.e.'s in a variety of genres - and for > me the question of exactly what is going on and why in each is an abiding > question. I grant that the best moments in Mozart... I'd be curious to know what you consider to be "the best moments in Mozart"?
