Joseph Berg's offered link of this morning leads to some pages of surprisingly keen interest to those of us "aestheticians" with a nerdy turn of mind. It's surprising for several reasons, not the least of which is that the passage is from a book by Matt Kramer titled MAKING SENSE OF WINE. Here's an excerpt.
"Complexity as a desideratum in a fine wine is not an arbitrary standard. It appears that we are in fact set up to respond favorably to complexity. Decades of work in experimental psychology have revealed that when people are free to choose between a simple visual image and a more complex one they gravitate to the complex.The same results obtain with simple and complex light patterns. These and other tests reveal that, over a period of time, we always seek more complex stimuli. . . .Complexity is more than multiplicity. For a wine (or a melody) to be truly satisfying, especially after repeated exposure, it must continually surprise us (uncertainty) and yet we must still be able to grasp these surprises as part of a larger and pleasing pattern." Granted, there's much to question and even quarrel with in there. But I urge that those points do not keep you from finding what is helpful or encouraging for you. For example, I'm now finishing (I hope) a play with a great deal of complexity on several levels. A strong challenge for me comes from my motivation to make it as accessible as I can. However, there's a part of me convinced that its ability to engage my ideal intended audience will depend on my retaining as much of the complexity as I can. In other words, the exhortation Simplify! Simplify! may be exactly the wrong guide for me to follow strictly. FYI: Berg's link below must have no spaces in it. I found it didn't work for me until I'd made sure that each line-end did not result in a space. On Aug 12, 2012, at 12:17 AM, joseph berg wrote: > "What satisfies us so fundamentally about complexity is still the subject > of speculation, *largely in the academic field of aesthetics*. It appears > that we favor--relish might be a more descriptive, if less exact > term--uncertainty or lack of predictability." > > http://books.google.com/books?id=aFFnTwAit1oC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=%22largely+ > in+the+academic+field+of+aesthetics%22&source=bl&ots=AYi1cJB3Fb&sig=rK1SUZ9o0 > 2xyn-ouHNAoV4oiNVA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pS0nULDCE43riQL3iIDYBA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=one > page&q=%22largely%20in%20the%20academic%20field%20of%20aesthetics%22&f=false > http://books.google.com/books?id=aFFnTwAit1oC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=%22largely+ in+the+academic+field+of+aesthetics%22&source=bl&ots=AYi1cJB3Fb&sig=rK1SUZ9o0 2xynuHNAoV4oiNVA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pS0nULDCE43riQL3iIDYBA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepa ge&q=%22largely%20in%20the%20academic%20field%20of%20aesthetics%22&f=false
