Exactly what i'm saying Tom, I agree with you. An aesthetic experience is both bad and good depending on the individual experiencing it, aesthetics has a very large umbrella for all taste, not just pleasant, as i want to understand it. ab
On Dec 9, 2013, at 11:45 AM, Tom McCormack wrote: > On Dec 9, 2013, at 12:03 AM, armando baeza wrote: > >> "Aesthetic experiences" as i originally understood it, was that any thing >> under the umbrella >> between the two extremes of taste ,likes and dislikes. >> good-bad,ugly-beauty,etc could >> be an "aesthetic experience". >> To me,that means that any sudden feeling of any kind from nature or man > made >> art could >> be an aesthetic feeling. >> The problem I see is that some people get a pleasant surprise feeling, > while >> others >> may feel the opposite from the same experience. Yet both are really >> "aesthetic >> experiences",. >> ab > > Not for me. Someone recently sent me a series of precarious mountain-climbing > photos. Every single one was scary. I guarantee I got a "sudden feeling" from > some of them. But I have no inclination to call that feeling an "aesthetic > experience". Why, though? I'm ready to call the experience occasioned in me by > very disparate things like a Dickinson poem, a Hokusae wood print, and > Beethoven's Ninth "aesthetic experiences", but not a photo of a gruesome car > crash, or the photo of someone jumping out of the ninetieth floor on 9/11. > Why? There'a lot to be learned about just what is going on when we hear a > Mozart piano concerto, or watch Allegra Kent dancing > L'aprhs-midi d'un faune.
