I think,when an artist reaches a point of qenuine uniqueness in his/hers expressions the WHY'S become a little clearer.
mando On Dec 20, 2013, at 4:01 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> Paraphrasing Michael Brady: >> >> "Would the general mechanism of reacting >> to a work of art, whatever the feeling, not be the same [whether he >> feels poorly about a work, or middling , or >> ecstatic] if he can discuss that feeling??" >> >> I don't know what Michael has in mind with "the general mechanism of >> reacting". One of my questions might be rephrased to: What's the mechanism, >> what's going on, when I have an a.e.? Another would be: Is it indeed a >> "general" mechanism? I agree it seems to be, as evidenced by my readiness to call >> my reactions to my favorite works "aesthetic" despite the diversity of the >> genres. But how come I can react to a poem or a painting -- hugely different >> stimuli -- in a way that is "generally" the same? What's going on? >> >> Michael adds: >> >> "I perceive X, which stimulates such and such a reaction (provokes a >> feeling or series or cluster of feelings), which I construe in a certain way or >> put into a given context, and I conclude that X wowed me/bored me/appalled >> me." >> >> But what I'm after is WHY does it wow me when it does? Why do the best >> Mozart, Beethoven, Dickinson, Van Gogh have the effect they do? >> >> And why do they all strike me as a.e.'s? I don't think of the various >> other "genres" of pleasure --paletal, olfactory, tactile, etc -- as the >> "same" in a way equal to the way I'm inclined to think of aesthetic pleasures as >> "the same" (not identical but of the same "family", in the way the taste >> of apple juice, cognac, and steak are all paletal).
