OK. I suppose I went too far (excessive leap) and attacked Berg's presumed function (or reason for being) of an aesthetic ideal. If the function of an ideal is to exclude something outside of itself then the function is synonymous with the ideal. In that case the ideal does not display itself or can't be known until it functions, until it excludes. Or, the ideal is defined by its function. An axe might be an obvious example. An ideal axe in this regard is the one that cuts wood best with a given amount of force. One might imagine an ideal that has no limiting function but is denoted or made apparent by traits that are harmonious with it. In this case an ideal axe would not only cut best, as the one above, but would also, say, gleam more brightly, have a lovely -- difficult to make -- shape, be esteemed as rare, etc., etc. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, August 27, 2012 9:21:20 AM Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ideal > On Aug 27, 2012, at 3:33 AM, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Shouldn't an aesthetic ideal address the necessity of curbing the desire >> for excess and novelty to avoid decadence, decline and demise? On Aug 27, 2012, at 10:03 AM, William Conger <[email protected]> wrote: > The best art always is excessive. Ah, but Berg didn't ask about the best art. He asked about "an aesthetic ideal." And he used the flimsy weasel verb "address," not exactly a robust notion. "Address the necessity of curbing"? Really? An "aesthetic ideal" expresses the consolidation of achievements that, taken together, exemplify a set of internally harmonious relationships. (I take the Aristotelian approach of empirical evidence that are abstracted into a canon, not a Platonic view of imperfect copies of a pre-existing, immaterial model.) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
