Yep. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: john m <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, March 16, 2012 11:24:06 AM Subject: Re: descriptive / empirical aesthetics?
Maybe I should also add that I could imagine deriving an aesthetic experience from let's say the way someone has decorated their flat, and I don't think it outrageous to say that there is a semblance of artistic activity there. Here's John Berger: "Composition begins with a simple question: where in the given format is it best to put this? And this, and this (...) The act of composing is always the act of placing forms within a contained, separate space. To compose is to arrange an interior." (from "The Place of Painting") Another man-made thing that might be "not art" could be pornography, if it has the sole aim of provoking sexual arousal. But it might have elements of art of course. I don't know, it seems to me that a lot of aesthetic theory wants to hang on to certain ideals of "great art", as if something were endangered if we acknowledged that a person can derive aesthetic experience from both a Bruckner symphony and, say, "Waterloo Sunset" or something. And that comes down to taste and prescription and just doesn't feel right to me. 16. maaliskuuta 2012 18.13 john m <[email protected]> kirjoitti: > William & Cheerskep, > > What is "not art" in my definition: 1) natural objects; 2) industrial > products; 3) man-made objects lacking obvious intention of being made as > art. Examples of the latter would be tools, weapons, primitive buildings & > vehicles, documents (writing without artistic aims), warning signs, etc. - > practical objects made for some other obvious purpose. Some of these might > have properties of craft objects though, in which case we could discuss > their aesthetic as well as practical value, like a decorated wooden spoon > or whatever. A painted picture or a text COULD be ambiguous in this > respect, but we'd have to think up some examples of those to discuss that. > > Cheerskep: As I'm trying to stay on the empirical side of things, I can't > presume any mind-independent idealist stuff at all. I know my language is > flimsy - I should probably start from the ground up and define my > terminology, Heidegger-style... The word "aesthetic" is dangerous, I should > at least define the two varieties of pleasure more rigorously. > > However, I thought I said a lot about what I have in mind when I say > "aesthetic experience" in the earlier, longer post (the bit about Croce and > the snare drum etc.) It still seems to me that art affects us because of > this "intentional" quality, and it seems to be a different feeling from the > "sensual" one. I'll try to come up with some examples to illustrate this...
