Hi all,
I must admit that it concerns me to see discussion of a so-called "aesthetic
experience". How can this experience be differentiated from other descriptions of bliss or
relief? There is nothing about an experience that has an ontic quality of "artness". Such
an experience is an internal process having more to do with consciousness than with the
art-experience responsible for it (or is the person experiencing it responsible?).
It's a slippery slope, to say that this experience is somehow different
from other experiences of strong emotion. If we get caught up in descriptions
of experiences and emotions we will end up trying to define consciousness.
Don't get me wrong I'd love to discuss consciousness but I have a feeling that it may
belong in another forum. Dan Dennett discusses some of these issues at length. Is anyone is
familiar with "Conciousness Explained" or his article "On the Absence of
Phenomenology"?
Dennett says something I find comforting that "there really are no
phenomenologists," that is, "no uncontroversial experts on the nature of the things that
swim in the stream of consciousness."
Is it possible to discuss aesthetics without reference to phenoms of a
conscious experience?
Curious to see anyone's reaction to this (good or bad)
-William Walker Conlin
On 3/12/12 4:39 AM, joseph berg wrote:
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"?
