I think using the word "proclaim" is stretching the intensity of the
comment. Berg seemed to equate having an aesthetic ideal with
being well behaved and having good taste as being part of being well
behaved, good taste being a social construct in this instance and not
philosophical. This what my comment was about. I would also point out
that the beaux-arts style,much though I like it,was part of and reified
a particular way of living in late nineteenth century European culture
and didn't represent the moral constructs of the culture which were
older. You also said of the beaux arts aesthetic ideal that it
was"truth, beauty, goodness in form. Each of those attributes required
applications requiring
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)." This presumably is your considered view and I can only say
that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Kate Sullivan
-----Original Message-----
From: William Conger <[email protected]>
To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, Aug 27, 2012 2:56 pm
Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ideal
Ok. But you should explain, I think, why you proclaim "aesthetic
ideals aren't
about being good,...or taste"
Taste is always an issue with aesthetics since taste is a subjective
judgment.
Good, or goodness, is inextricable from moral judgment, too, because
it
suggests the affirmative, as in 'this is good for me or for life"
My statement about 'excessive' is meant to imply that whatever the
boundaries of
the aesthetic might be, they can be expanded because they are always
affected by
the flow of life, the reality and its continuing expansion or
accumulation of
events (time's arrow, etc). In this respect being excessively is
simply an
effort to keep up with reality -- to embrace it and not to trim it to
fit the
parameters of the past.
wc
----- Original Message ----
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Mon, August 27, 2012 1:11:39 PM
Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ideal
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
