On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 11:39 PM, joseph berg <[email protected]> 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? > >> > > - Shallow sorrows and shallow loves live on. The loves and sorrows that are great are destroyed by their own plenitude. Oscar Wilde
