> Those that do not create, look for > the pleasure in ready made art start where > artist ended,a reflective positive > a,e ,or a negative one, or a mixture both.
I I should have added that the viewer likes it or rejects it, as and artist we should not be surprised by their reflections, Because as a viewer i do the same of others, work. ab On Dec 30, 2013, at 7:53 AM, William Conger wrote: > Some argue that the viewer is the creator at least as much as the artist. > Picasso was one of the first moderns to claim that the viewer 'completes' the > artist's work when viewing it. Some argue that all of the creativity is > constructed by the viewer. (Death of the author argument). Many artists > claim that they don't know or really care about the aesthetic power of their > work since they think it's all based in viewer response anyway. > > If we look > at culture and its histories from the standpoint of the viewer, imagining it > as a collective and evolving personal viewpoint then it would seek to confirm > that it -- the collective evolving culture/histories -- decides the nature of > art or aesthetics and creativity as its own self-reflection. So here's a > quip: Artists propose; audiences dispose. > > All of the little folklore artist > quips we get from Mando and sometimes me are interesting and have their place > in discourse, and are especially interesting when uttered by artists, but of > course they amount to almost nothing as contributions to intellectual > discourse among a group of people who strive for a consensus regarding some > idea, view or other. > > It's far more useful for participants to try to present > ideas logically and with commonplace words than it is to fall back on quips, > aphorisms, slogans and simple ego-statements (the "because I'm an artist and I > say so" syndrome) which are better suited to consumer advertising and movie > banners than to intellectual talk. > > wc > > > > > ________________________________ > From: armando baeza <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 > 8:59 PM > Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ecstasy > > > > On Dec 29, 2013, at 5:40 PM, > saul ostrow wrote: > >> but what of those who do not create but receive >> >> >> On > Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:28 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Then we shouldn't > call the initial impression aesthetic until after >>> it has rolled through the > other stages? I suppose this lets the man who >>> weeps with pleasure at both > Crystal Chandeliers and una poco fa off >>> the hook. He can always claim > that when he thought it over he realized >>> that Crystal Chandeliers was a > mistake. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: saul ostrow > <[email protected]> >>> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> >>> > Cc: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Sun, Dec 29, 2013 > 9:42 am >>> Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ecstasy >>> >>> My point is there is a stimuli > (an impression) the affect (consequence) >>> of >>> that is the discernment (the > judgment) that the experience I have had >>> is one I >>> come to associate with > something called the aesthetic ( in that it >>> primarily >>> stimulates/ > appeals to my senses) - reflecting up this I determine if >>> I have >>> found > it to be pleasurable or not and to what degree - >>> >>> The experience is a > reflex (partially intuited and partially tacit) - >>> the >>> reflection and > discernment learned - the determination subjective >>> (taste) >>> >>> Sent from > my iPhone >>> >>> On Dec 29, 2013, at 9:09 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> > aesthetic effect is ecstasy,judgement follows, or the result of the >>>> > effect is judgement,or the judgement is ecstasy after the effect and >>>> > whatever follows after in the shape of reflection and and the forming >>>> of > an opinion is also called judgement? >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: saul ostrow <[email protected]> >>>> To: aesthetics-l > <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: aesthetics-l > <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Sun, Dec 29, 2013 1:25 am >>>> > Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ecstasy >>>> >>>> Aesthetic effect - ecstasy >>>> > Aesthetic effect - judgement >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Dec 28, > 2013, at 9:38 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Saul said that judgment > followed the aesthetic ecstasy earlier in a >>>>> different phrasing. I also > think affect is a better word than >>>>> experience and certainly than > ecstasy, which has other connotations >>>>> and is a surprising choice on > Cheerskep's part.The aesthetic affect >>>>> can vary from a what was that to a > much longer and more complex event >>>>> and I would suppose that both extremes > would have their own kinds of >>>>> reflection. >>>>> >>>>> -----Original > Message----- >>>>> From: Cheerskep <[email protected]> >>>>> To: aesthetics-l > <[email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Sat, Dec 28, 2013 6:25 pm >>>>> > Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ecstasy >>>>> >>>>> In a message dated 12/28/13 4:08:06 > PM, [email protected] writes: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> might aesthetic reflection work > better - and allow the ecstasy be >>>>>> understood as affect >>>>>> >>>>>> For > some it certainly may. For me it doesn't, because I see three >>>>>> >>>>> > different >>>>> stages in the kind of aesthetic event I'm addressing. First, > the >>>>> raw-data >>>>> encounter with the work -- seeing it, hearing it, > reading it. Second, >>>>> the >>>>> almost immediate reaction -- the feeling I'm > now calling aesthetic >>>>> ecstasy. >>>>> Third, any subsequent attempt to > articulate what just happened, and >>>>> >>>> how >>>> >>>>> I felt, >>>>> and (to > the extent possible) why. I persist in feeling third stage >>>>> amounts to > my "reflections". They can go on for a long time after the >>>>> ecstasy >>>>> > itself is over. If you go to GOOGLE and enter the two words >>>>> "Reflections > on" you >>>>> see a large number of essays with titles that begin that way, > and, >>>>> >>>> for >>> >>>> me, >>>>> that period of reflection is, for me, > unmistakably different from the >>>>> ecstasy. (Burke's REFLECTIONS ON THE > FRENCH REVOLUTION runs to 98,000 >>>>> words. In >>>>> literature-appreciation, > there have been "Reflections on" given short >>>>> stories >>>>> that are longer > than the story itself, and they are cerebral events, >>>>> not the >>>>> > "feeling" itself.) >>>>> >>>>> But exactly what I've been claiming is that > individual "words" do not >>>>> "have" "meanings". That second stage -- the > "ecstasy" -- is >>>>> >>>> emotional, >>> >>>> a >>>>> "feeling", and I personally > think of "reflections" as something >>>>> collected in >>>>> tranquility. If I > burn my hand by encountering flame at the stove, I >>>>> wouldn't think >>>>> of > the pain as a reflection on the flame. But that's my own personal >>>>> > word-use. If a different use works for someone else, there's no way I >>>>> can > call >>>>> them "wrong". At most I might claim their use will occasion an >>>>> >>>> unwanted >>>> >>>>> notion >>>>> in many readers (I often did that as an > editor), but I could be wrong >>>>> about >>>>> that. >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> > [image: Inline image 1] >> >> [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type > image/png which had a name of > image.png]
