There is no question taste comes to play in any action of man. Any subject, including taste, can be looked at from many angles. The more the better. Of course we use our taste when we choose method(ology) of how we do things. The same in pedagogy- how we teach shows our taste. Our conversation started with the question if we can teach aesthetic taste, but not if we use it in our teaching. Emotion plays a major part in discerning taste regarding beauty. We canbt teach emotion, we can only set favorable conditions to experience similar emotion. Naked fact of nature taught has nothing to do with taste. Selecting the facts to be taught requires taste. I think we have to refine the line of argument before we come to any sensible answer. I see mindful refinement of the discussion line is necessary for it to be productive. Boris Shoshensky
-- William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Cheerskep tries to ridicule me into submission. He holds the absurd notion that taste functions at some point in our thinking but is absent in others. I say it is present in all thinking, even teaching, to some degree, removing any previous implication that it could be all but absent. No, I say it is as natural to our thinking and acting as breathing. Consciousness itself may be "taste" even as I admit being enchanted by the new relevance of Schiller.) Cheerskep's pallid efforts at humor by ridicule only underscore an allegience to banal, limited language. Yes, I am guilty on all counts. He may parse my sentences, shrink my words and abuse my teaching integrity, but he remains blind and unfunny. The three lines of simplified one point perspective are as evocative as Descartes' three lines meeting at right angles --- elegant is the word whispered by mathematicians. Art is a life. It engulfs one entirely. Nothing is excluded, no matter how mundane or foolish it may seem to outsiders. Taste is the exercise of art as a life. Yes, indeed there is a tasteful way to wash brushes. There is an "Indian" or LaoTzu way, if you please. Everything we do should be respectful, tasteful, humble. Taste is being in harmony with nature and life, with the animate. It is not stilted or artificial or theatrical. It is consciousness as beauty. It can be loving and brutal, nurturing and destructive. Taste is not for wimpies seeking affectations. I am not embarrassed by taste and art and beauty. It is as life, and not present one moment and absent another. One is not dead at some times and alive at others. Yes, that is how I taught thousands of students. As an artist I always try to do everything as well as I can with reverance -- even when sweeping the studio floor. Only those deeply fused with a vocation understand this. Others should try to appreciate it or just go home. Yes, I taught taste to my students. And my art is taste. I think a situational view of taste is puny, unfit for an aesthetic role. I prefer to think of taste as in kinship with beauty, if not actually at one with it. Philosophy devoid of feeling is nonsense. WC --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'm with the two Mikes in feeling your usages of > 'taste' devalue the > currency. You say, "I don't intend to stretch the > word taste so far as to drain it of > utility," but I feel you do exactly that when you > celebrate the taste involved > in sharpening pencils. > > In my original comment I thought briefly of using > the cleaning of brushes as > an example of a useful instruction in art school > that doesn't involve "taste", > but you convey you think that it is -- as with the > pencils -- part of the > "aesthetic" of artmaking, and so it involves taste. > So presumably teaching the > use of one solvent instead of another is teaching > "taste" by you. Teaching which > fastener in attaching canvas to a frame is the least > likely to tear the > canvas is teaching taste because it "involves visual > doing". Same would also seem > to apply to teaching how to set up the best storage > system for finished > paintings -- it too involves visual doing. > > You say, "any instruction in art, where teaching and > learning involve visual > doing, is blended with taste -- a sense of the > beautiful." The use of the two > commas there suggests "where teaching and learning > involve visual doing" is a > non-restrictive relative clause, which means we can > drop it without affecting > the rest of the sentence. So you say "any > instruction in art is blended with > taste -- a sense of the beautiful." So teaching > about those paint-solvents is > "blended with a sense of the beautiful." > > Also: "Any use of any visual system involves taste." > Surely a great deal of > the activity of the non-blind among us entails a use > of a visual system? The > use of graphs to plot stock market movements > involves a visual system. Indeed, I > guess "taste -- a sense of the beautiful" is > "involved" in making out your > tax returns, entailing as it does filling out those > visual forms. > > You also inscrutably assert, "any use of any visual > system involves > feelings/emotions, evocations." So when the tv > techies were here last week assembling > our new set while consulting a wiring chart, gosh > knows what emotions and > feelings were surging through their heads. I also > should have complimented them for > their taste, since you assert, "Because any use of > any visual system involves > feelings/emotions, evocations, it also involves > taste." > > But maybe not, it's not sure, maybe you want to > claim the use of a visual > system involves "taste" only in teaching, or maybe > only in teaching art, because > you say, " You can't teach perspective without > implementing it visually. The > manner in which it is implemented engages taste. I > will maintain that any > instruction in art, where teaching and learning > involve visual doing, is blended > with taste -- a sense of the beautiful." I myself > have seen one-point > perspective taught with only three straight lines; I > have a hard time seeing how a > "sense of the beautiful" came into it. I'm moved to > observe that by this > standard -- that is, if teaching and learning a > course involves visual doing it must > be "blended with taste -- a sense of beauty" -- then > all courses in trade > school and all science courses in high school and > college are "blended with taste > -- a sense of beauty". I do hear a terrible > stretching sound. > > Trouble is, 'engages', 'involves', 'is blended with' > are such vague and > non-restrictive words they call to mind a club that > absolutely anyone can join. You
