CHEERS! SKEP'S AB
On Dec 28, 2013, at 12:28 PM, [email protected] wrote: > In a message dated 12/28/13 12:48:00 PM, [email protected] writes: > > >> Cheerskep's wish to limit the quest for understanding aesthetic >> experience to >> something akin to sexual orgasm suggest to me a simple desire for more >> sex. >> > I've never on this forum tried to LIMIT the quest for understanding; I > claim that with my repeated urging of listers to examine the feeling > occasioned > by "art" has been an attempt to EXPAND the quest. This forum has for years > talked about many interesting topics in aesthetics, but, for me, this > aesthetic ecstasy has been a mystery at the heart of "art", and I've always > thought > we ought to look into it. > > William writes further: > > "I wonder if the people who actually make art - being so engaged in the > process, etc., don't have the 'orgasm' Cheerskep considers the proof of > aesthetic experience because they must maintain distance. > Wc" > > William touches on something interesting here. But my guess as to why the > creative artist is not in a constant state of aesthetic ecstasy is that they > CAN'T maintain the distance required. The working artist is for most of his > work day like a highly skilled craftsman -- say, an architect who's also the > construction engineer responsible for building the whole "beautiful" > structure. The engineer may have at the back of his mind a vision of the > completed > work, but at any given moment he's likely to be inside a dark shaft trying > to figure out how to use this elevator shaft as also the conduit for > electrical wiring and air-condition pipes. It's hard to thrill to the gorgeous > total-building design at moments like that. > > Even so, many working artists get occasional jolts of exultation as they > solve today's demand for a certain effect right here. > > I'd also respond to William that I think he has it wrong when he says > "Cheerskep considers [the orgasm-like aesthetic ecstasy to be] the PROOF of > aesthetic experience". I can't be sure what William has in mind with 'proof' > there. I don't think of experiencing a taste-delight as "proving" that one was > hungry or even had an appetite. It may be thought of as proving something > about the taste buds or the pleasing quality of the food consumed. Which, if > we think about it, may be an exact comparison to what I've been asking all > along: What is going on when someone has an a.e.? Rephrased: What does > one's having an a.e. prove? > > William has asserted he never uses "ad hominem" in his posting. I think he > often does. It should be beneath him to laugh off my aesthetic quest as > simply a manifestation of a desire for more sex. Beware of disdain, William. > It's the first resort of the baffled.
