I feel it's about the best one can possibly do at that moment. ABaeza
On Aug 27, 2012, at 11:11 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Not Ellen. Wrong list. Besides, it was you who said "The best art > always is excessive. A good artist will always go past, > way past, > the supposed limit of good taste. Look at the best art of any era and > compare > it to other work of that same era." > Berg seems to feel that an aesthetic ideal is a form of good > behavior,like not liking neon cacti,and I was responding to that. > Kate Sullivan > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Conger <[email protected]> > To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, Aug 27, 2012 1:23 pm > Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ideal > > Nice feisty statement, Ellen, but what supports it? There's great > deal of > commentary that doesn't. See www.neotericart.com then check on its > 2011 essays > my essay Can Art Be Moral Again? Or I can send you a copy to your > non-list > email. > > The beaux-arts aesthetic ideal, called The Style, was regarded as > combining > truth, beauty, goodness in form. Each of those attributes required > applications > of taste and morality (where morality meant good intentions toward > truth and > beauty expressed as refined taste. (Taste being one of the primary > aspects of > the aesthetic when the notion was first defined as a philosophical > issue). > > The development of modernism dismantled The Style and all the > attributes it > enshrined. Some theorists wanted to restore it but without the > metaphysical > elements of goodness and taste, or even truth. They centered on the > objective > qualities of form and formalist organization. Thus Significant Form. > In my > view they only resurrected the The Style but saw it more broadly than > before. > In other words, my view of modernism is that it is a gradual expansion > of > earlier aesthetic ideas/ideals and not a reversal of them at all. > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, August 27, 2012 12:00:00 PM > Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ideal > > aesthetic ideals aren't about being good. Or taste. > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Conger <[email protected]> > To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, Aug 27, 2012 10:03 am > Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ideal > > The best art always is excessive. A good artist will always go past, > way past, > the supposed limit of good taste. Look at the best art of any era and > compare > it to other work of that same era. In its context, it is excessive. If > the > context is generally bombastic, say, then the 'excessive' best will be > spare. > And so on. > > If Berg would simply reverse all of his assumptions, he'd be in tune > with a > contemporary mindset. > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Mon, August 27, 2012 3:26:59 AM > Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ideal > > On Aug 27, 2012, at 3:33 AM, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Do you have one? >>> Over time, did it change? >>> If so, in what way? >> >> Shouldn't an aesthetic ideal address the necessity of curbing the > desire >> for excess and novelty to avoid decadence, decline and demise? > > > No. > > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady
