> My own plan, given world enough and time, would be to begin with > aesthetic experiences (...) And I'd compare the a.e.'s from the different > genres and see if I can justify calling them all a.e.'s. I'd ask what the > hell is going when I get them?
I agree absolutely. The method you propose is exactly what I mean by empirical or descriptive. That's what I've been doing myself - working backwards from the a.e. - and to me, personally, what appears to be going on when I derive an a.e. is that I identify closely with the artist who made the work. Sometimes, when the artist's taste is very close to my own, the a.e. occurs instantaneously; sometimes it takes some acquainting to begin understanding where the artist is coming from; and only rarely it doesn't happen at all. (Usually when I fail to sympathize with an artist, it seems to be because I deem the work to be aesthetically derivative, like a cover band obviously trying to sound like someone else) The natural vs. man-made issue I think has to be thought out in more detail - it might indeed be a subjective quirk of mine, or maybe just a theoretical crutch. Anyone else care to comment on this? There was that bit about Brueghel in the other thread that touched upon the same issue... 16. maaliskuuta 2012 21.21 <[email protected]> kirjoitti: > In a message dated 3/16/12 12:52:18 PM, [email protected] writes: > > > > It would be better to take as a starting point some object that is > > generally agreed to be a work of art, and then examine why and how it > > produces aesthetic experience. > > > My own plan, given world enough and time, would be to begin with aesthetic > experiences. I mean a.e.'s from various genres -- visual "art", music, > poetry, drama, dance. I start with the admittedly controversial premise > that an > a.e. is its own genus of experience, as distinctly its own as an olfactory > or > taste or tactile etc feeling. And I'd compare the a.e.'s from the different > genres and see if I can justify calling them all a.e.'s. I'd ask what the > hell is going when I get them? Why do I get them from some works in a given > genre, and not from other works? Then I'd try to compare the nature of the > a.e.'s from these so-called art genres with some seemingly comparable > feelings > from "real life". You would exclude any feelings from "natural" objects and > events because the elements lack intentionality. I don't buy that. I'll > cartoon that position by saying I can have a terrific taste experience from > something prepared by a chef, but also from something picked right from a > tree. > I claim I've seen drama on a sporting field, and in life-and-death events > being shown live on television. And so on. I know it's a project I'll > never > conclude.
