Art is undefinable and unteachable,yet it continues to exist. So it may be because no two minds walk the same road. armando baeza, yes, ibm still around
> On Oct 13, 2015, at 5:07 PM, User lslbsc2 at aol <[email protected]> wrote: > > I find Saul's phrase "merely a sense experience" narrow-minded , and yes I know about the pathetic attempts of the scientists to claim their work is art- so? Outlining BArzun isn't an explanation of why what Saul said was useful. > KAte Sullivan > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> > To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Tue, Oct 13, 2015 7:33 pm > Subject: Re: Art's transformation > > >> On Oct 13, 2015, at 5:48 PM, User lslbsc2 at > aol > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> You want to explain why it's > on point? > > Saul wrote, "here I'm thinking about the role aesthetics plays in > mathematics > and physics - and how things come to be received - aesthetics > as > it is transformed into a cognitive and semiotic function, rather than > merely a > sense experience.b > > Barzun wrote, bScience envies art and makes frequent > noises and gestures to > suggest that it *is* art. Mathematicians b Bernard > Russell for one b often > assert that their works provoke esthetic emotions and > are in fact ruled by > canons of elegance, structural beauty, and the like.b From > "Lecture Five, > Art and Its Tempter, Science,b p. 117. > > The contents of the > book: > > One: Why Art Must Be Challenged > Two: The Rise of Art as > Religion > Three: Art the Destroyer > Four: Art the Redeemer > Five: Aft and Its > Tempter Science > Six: Art in the Vacuum of Belief > > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | > | | | | | > Michael Brady
