On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Tom McCormack <[email protected]> wrote: > Joseph asked: Aesthetic Ideal do you have one? > > > > Chris -- Your position seems to be that you are against asking him what he has > in mind with 'Aesthetic Ideal'.
Not really 'against', just not interested. If somebody asks me if I have a dog, I don't ask what sort of dog, or if he means a male canine, or a U shaped metallic device for holding or gripping heavy objects. I just say yes, a Corgi, and he's not nice to puppies. If I guessed wrong in framing my reply ( maybe the asker really needs that U shaped device) I'm sure I'll be corrected. But in all likelihood the asker has gotten what information was asked for. More importantly - especially when dealing with fairly vague notions like aesthetic ideal - it holds the door open to further discussion. This is especially important on the internet, where there really isn't an affective channel like one has in face-to-face interaction. There's no body language, little sense of intonation, and not much history of personal interaction. If I respond directly and miss the mark completely, Joseph is free to say "No, that's not what I meant", and we can try again. But if what I put forward something that overlaps what he might be thinking, then there is the possibility of synthesizing a common ground between the two points of view that could be mutually beneficial. But when one's first response is to challenge the asker to define precisely what is meant, all that ever seems to result is yet another sophomoric descent into beating the rather dead horse with respect to the uncertainty of meaning. Not that the uncertainty can be disregarded; it's one of the reasons I try to move as quickly as possible to examples that are relatively well known. Of course by doing so one also runs into trouble because others will see work differently than I. If I talk about the humanism of Lautrec's brothel works, sometimes I'll get confronted by might right-wing friends with cries of "Lesbians! Prostitutes! Debauchery and Dissipation!"; on the other hand if I do the same with Cassatt, my left-wing friends get upset by "Wealthy! 1 percenter! Regressive Kitsch!". But with most people, particularly the ones that interest me, using the specific to illustrate potential areas from which one can move to deeper generalizations is pretty rewarding. Funnily enough, that approach is also slowly getting mathematized, see factor analysis and principle component analysis. But as usual, math significantly lags philosophy and art. Cheers; Chris
