Mike: With regard to the sophisticated aspect of Hume's position: How would
you view the success of breeders of Afghan hounds who, I understand, have,
through scientific breeding procedures developed representatives of the
breed which conform in an outstanding way to the demand by judges of the
breed that the dog's heads be particularly narrow, presumably a standard of
beauty or aesthetics but also resulting in members of the breed
demonstrating limited intelligence? Aesthetics trumps health?
Geoff C
From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Appreciating art
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 06:27:42 -0800 (PST)
Mike;
OK. I take your point.
But another distinction remains to be queried: What is the difference
between like and appreciate? Is it one of kind or one of degree? Does
appreciate require taste (guided by "True Docents")? Is liking simply a
preference that may or may not involve good taste. Can liking be a matter
of bad taste (False Docents)? I think these questions are pertinent but
I'm not sure how to answer them. I said earlier that I tend to agree with
Gombrich's view that "there are no wrong reasons for liking an artwork"
(possible paraphrase). For him, some liking, even bad taste or tasteless
liking was at least a first access to art. Perhaps he would've agreed that
it was a prejudice that disabled prejudice. He did think that any liking
may or may not be really salient to an artwork's central or fullest content
-- I mean with all the implications of historical, formal, cultural, and
personal content.
My own view is that "appreciation" is very low on the scale from liking
to aesthetic engagement because it does not evoke inherently aesthetic
content even if it can be assigned such content by True Docents.
WC
--- On Wed, 11/5/08, Mike Mallory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Mike Mallory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Appreciating art
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2008, 9:03 PM
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Conger"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Appreciating art
>
>
> > Mike;
> >
> > Your response assumes that there is a right way to
> appreciate art.
>
> ______________________________________________________________
>
> I do not believe there is a unified way to appreciate art.
> I do not believe
> there is a unified way by which art can be aesthetically
> valued. I like
> Hume's pragmatism.
>
>
>
> "Hume outlines what is required to improve one's
> taste and to be a true
> judge of at least some kinds of art. Five factors must come
> together:'Strong
> sense, united to delicate sentiment, improved by practice,
> perfected by
> comparison, and cleared of all prejudice.' These
> conditions for achieving
> good taste imply that only a very few will ever be
> qualified judges of any
> specific work of art."
>
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20of%20art/hume_and_kant.htm#2
>
>
>
> But, I believe Hume overstates the case. Rather than
> "True Judges", I
> subscribe to the idea that there are "True
> Docents", who offer ways of
> appreciating art, yet are not bound to agree.
>
>
>
> By asking my questions of Geoff C., I was merely trying to
> suggest that the
> path towards a rubric capable of distinguishing those who
> lack the ability
> to appreciate art from those who have that ability is
> fraught with
> difficulty.
>
>
>
> Mike Mallory
