evidently both of you did not read my corrected statements
1.A personal aesthetic experience is in the eye of the beholder.
that would cover all possible tastes, no?
For me, an a.e. has all manner of intensity , from blah to wow!
2.This only goes to prove that
Aesthetics is in the eye of all beholder!
Not necessarily beauty only
Aesthetics is where all manner of taste
coexist and separated only by individuals
or group of individual.
mando
On May 16, 2008, at 7:52 AM, Michael Brady wrote:
On May 16, 2008, at 10:44 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The phrase, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," is interesting
but lax.
Certainly, "Response is in the eye of the beholder," can be
defended, and the
response can be very favorable in someone who would nevertheless
not invoke the
word 'beauty' about the favored work. Anyone who cried "Beautiful"
about
Lucien Freud's "Benefits Supervisor Sleeping" would be using the
word differently
from me.
It's not a beautiful painting? That's what they said about
Pearlstein's nudes, when they were first exhibited in the 70s. The
models were not paragons of human form, will sagging flesh and
wrinkly parts, hum-drum visages, etc., made all the more less
appealing by the way Pearlstein painted the cast shadows that
seemed, in many cases, to run counter to the shading of the body
contours and, in all, produce splotchy or jarringly mottled
effects. But his paint handling and brushwork, not to mention the
actual anatomical fidelity, are marvelous.
Derek applies the term "art" to designate works he deems to reach
an certain degree of exalted achievement; here, you seem to use
"beauty" to signify the degree of felicity or pleasantness in the
model. But of course, I may be looking at the right notions
department, eh?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
