Not good enough Cheerskep. Say why you agree, especially since Michael has always been skeptical of your extreme subjectivity. This triumphalism of yours is admirable but not convincing. For instance, one a recent post you dismiss Barthes and Foucault as empty or some such but those fellows have the status that demands much more than a dismissive grunt one might expect from a provincial Luddite. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, September 29, 2012 8:56:34 AM Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ideal I agree with every word of Michael's posting! In a message dated 9/29/12 5:23:30 AM, [email protected] writes: > On Sep 29, 2012, at 4:47 AM, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > To keep style subordinate to substance, shouldn't an aesthetic ideal > eschew > > effects? > > What do you mean by "style"? "substance"? "effects"? Everything has > "style," > and just enough of it. (It's like the joke, "My, we've had a lot of > weather > this year.") And everythng has "substance" (a vague term). You are making > an > impractical dichotomy between the two. "Style" cannot exist without > "substance," nor can "substance" be made manifest without "style." > > Moreover, why do you propose that style be subordinated to subtaance? As I > use > the term, an "aesthetic ideal" does embrace "effects," but maybe not the > ones > someone (you?) might prefer. Some effects may be judged as sedate or > serene > (classical Greek sculpture) and others as dramatic or exaggerated > (Hellenistic > sculpture). One viewer may prefer, say, the turbulence of the Mausoleum > sculptures and find the sedate effects of the Panathenaic frieze to be > tediously intrusive. Others may like Satie'sGymnopaedies and be put off > by > Mozart's bombastic scores. > > Note, btw, that the word "style" is derived from "stylus," a writing tool, > and > is now often used to indicate the distincitve qualities of a work that are > typical of the maker, as handwriting is uniquely linked to one person. > Stylistic analysis is a common technique in artistic study and is used to > help > ascertain the authorship of disputed works. I read you comment to suggest > that > the maker's characteristic decisions and approach should be subordinated > to > some other consideration--content, I suppose, which is a reasonable > interpretation of "substance"--but I don't see how that is practical > because > content cannot be expressed in immaterial form, and when the artist forms > the > substances, he does so in his typical, normal manner, i.e., with his > style, > which (at least in his mind) conforms to the substance of the idea. > > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady
