On Sunday, March 24, 2002, at 05:04 PM, Thomas P. Warren wrote: > Hey Jeff, > > Greetings again, we've bumped minds before. I'm not concerned at all > about > copyright infringement. . . ha, ha, it's all been written, right? I do > note merits where source of origin is important, however. Simply good > training (and respectful and proper current convention). > > Honestly, I think the relationship between sign (or object), perception > (on > the part of an agent or subject), and content is a serious can of worms > that > no 'philosopher, writer,' or maybe even, 'artist or critic' has been > able to > hash out adequately over the course of recorded history -in a full, > explained, 'tecnik' (sp, Gr.) sense similar to Kant's exhaustive > methodology/approach to explaining the relationships between > art/work/artist/critic/public.
I agree. Hence my interest in writing something on the topic. One of my old college profs at Dickinson, Cyril Dwiggins, is supposed to have a book on affect and ethics that may contribute significantly to this discourse, though. I can't wait. > The Greeks said they understood it (art), > but what do we have left of their understanding? Mimetic echoes of > retranslated, second-hand, subject material. Same problem with the > Bible, > Quraan, etc.. And the same goes for a lot of > critics/artists/philosopher's > 'original' work right up until the 16th, 17th, and 18th C.'s. This was > why > I was so interested in literary theory, per se, as when I graduated from > undergrad, those topics/areas of discourse were where the 'cutting > edge' of > theory were going -the philosophy of language, dialects, idiom, > regionalisms, and even (god forbid) sentential (or even quantitative) > logic! > There was a move going on to understand the essential elements of > communication on a theoretic level, in the hope that it would help shed > new > light on the actual experience of the subject that included all (or > some or > few) of these basic elements. > > Now maybe therein lies the catch-22, i.e., that words fail. This is perhaps where we begin to part ways in our thinking on the subject. The art experience is something common to everyone on etree--otherwise we wouldn't be going through the pains we do to collect art that moves us. I'm looking for descriptions of the experience that motivates us to be collectors and concert-goers. > Interesting > concept -the concept that does not innately work. Telling that we can > theorize a concept that conceptually contradicts itself/doesn't work. > And > if you ask me, paradox is one of THE signs of the 'real' foundation of > the > conscious (and subjective) world we live in. Followed closely by irony, > tragedy, and maybe a few others. Humor has always interested me in that regard... > Across the spectrum of theoretic concepts, > these are obviously closely tied (if not directly identified) with the > notion of human. I agree. Merleau-Ponty, Gadamer and Heidegger would also agree, I think, though perhaps for slightly different reasons. But that didn't stop Heidegger from writing "Being and Time" which is precisely about being human. > > But to stay on-topic, from a more broad perspective, that medium fail to > capture the WHOLE of an artistic experience, that something is always > 'left > over,' is right-on-track with how art is experienced by the subject. > The > artistic experience can always be particular to me, qua subject > -right? I'm > conceptually speaking about a more Derridean-oriented outlook on > surplus and > what-is-left-over here (ultimately a Nietzschean idea, to be sure, but > Jacques brought a lot of 20th C. attention to originally-Nietszchean > ideas, > if you ask me -Spurs? C'mon. I mean his dealing with 'The Other' > -another > obvious Nietzschean overlude). But I think Neitzsche and Derrida throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. As soon as one takes the view that whatever we say about reality is subjective, one is at least implicitly making a statement about reality (which Derrida would surely admit). It's just that for Derrida, reality is defined differently, than say, Aquinas or Aristotle. I think it's a matter of the precise degree to which a philosopher decides to allow skepticism into their thought. After all, Neitzsche was primarily concerned with this notion that truth is a human construct. But when you stub your toe, for example, that's certainly not something that the subject willed in some way. There certainly (in my view) is mind-independent reality. It's simply a matter of whether/how we approach the discussion of that reality, and what sort of evidence we require. I personally choose to be less skeptical in the interest of discovery. But everything Derrida needed to say could be written in a small text like "Differance". His insights can be helpful, but for a guy who thinks the meaning of texts is undecidable, he sure writes a lot of texts. ;-) > > Ultimately, there has to be some sort of unexplainable element to the > artistic experience (whatever the particular example of an artistic > moment > may fall under -standing before a painting, listening to a song, or a > combination of perceptual channels that mix/match > visual/tactile/auditory > stimuli). Why? I don't understand your thinking here. > Conceptually, art is SUPPOSED to bear an abstract, if not even an > absolutely conceptual abstract relationship to an agent -whether they > be the > creator or the onlooker (or somewhere in-between along that spectrum of > potential agents involved in the 'artistic experience'). Realistic artists would disagree with this, I think. Even impressionists would disagree. I stood before a Monet for days and finally it just struck me--this _is_ a field of flowers! What the artist did was to provide a different means of access (through his use of color, strokes, etc) than the ordinary means by which we see things. > > These are some of the rubrics under which current (?) discourse take > place > (at least here), I have little doubt. But will they ever be enough? > No, > and I hope not, because I'm a pretty devout member of the, "when > there's no > more discourse on a subject, the subject is dead" camp. I agree. But again, I think that the basic idea that phenomena can be described should prevail. I don't think we need to go so far as to say "this is indescribable". Heck, look again at Derrida's projects. Isn't he doing something like what the artist does? He talks all around an issue that he thinks, by its very nature, cannot be reproduced. And in doing so he is trying to make his audience see something in a new way--something he can't simply describe. Like mystical experience--words fail due to the nature of the experience and its object (if that's the right term). Perhaps artists do the same thing. They see something uniquely, and through the use of their medium (paint and canvas, sound, words, whatever) they guide us so that we can see something in a new way. But I want descriptions of experiences rather than meta-theory about art criticism and the art experience. How would you describe your experience of a painting or a novel or a song? How is that experience different than ordinary experience? What's unique about it? I have only my own experiences to draw from and so it would be helpful to know more about what others experience. > > Cheers, you did a nice job of fishing this out of me. When I compose my > Treatise Aestheticus Warrenus, you'll be the first e-copied! Thank you, Tom! And if this turns into an article, I'll be sure to do the same. Peace, Jeff > > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > etree.org etree mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://mail.etree.org/mailman/listinfo/etree > > Need help? Ask <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ etree.org etree mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://mail.etree.org/mailman/listinfo/etree Need help? Ask <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
