Michael: re appreciation and liking: my impression is that Chris and I take
"appreciation" to involve sophistication as opposed to necessarily liking.
In the case of classes in art appreciation, the student isn't necessarily
learning to like a painting or school. However, more generally, appreciation
implies liking/enjoying. Short of some authority (a dictionary?) being the
source of a ruling, I don't see that there need be a right or wrong here,
just differing connotations. I understand how you're using the term and
accept that that's right for you.
Geoff C
From: Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Appreciating art
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:50:36 -0500
On Nov 7, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
As such - "art appreciation" is completely distinct, and irrelevant, to
aesthetic engagement - except as a distraction.
"Art appreciation" is one kind of discourse about a piece -- but there
other
discourses as well -- political, religious, psychological,
anthropological
etc.
For the life of me, I don't understand how a person can parse and
compartmentalize his understanding, perception, evaluation, and reaction
to any experience, in this case, to viewing a painting or other WoA.
All I know and remember is a completely engaged participant in viewing a
painting. What I understand from all those 'discourses' mixes together in
my cerebral regions and percolates together to form the perceptual context
that *always* envelopes any encounter with a WoA.
It's a commonplace, but stupid, habit of speaking to say, "As an artist, I
..." or "As a Catholic, I ..." or "As a Libertarian, I ...." It's
particularly stupid and misguided to say, "As an artist, I believe that X,
Y, and Z will be good policies to follow in the next administration."
I've mentioned before on this list that for the longest time, well into my
30s, I didn't have a high opinion of Medieval pictorial art. I had
developed a strong preference for the classical qualities of portrayal,
mainly from Greek Classical and Hellenistic statuary and Roman Republican
sculputes. Then came the long interregnum, the slog through the 10
centuries of dreary unnatural-looking, clumsy portal sculptures and really
goofy illuminations, until the splendor of the Italian Renaissance
restored the grand style of representational realism, etc. It took me a
long time of study to warm to the flat, unnaturalistic, schematic
depictions of the Medieval style. But then, almost overnight, the scales
were lifted from my eyes and I saw the same works with a much stronger
appreciation for their appearance, their manner, their style, their whole
"gestalt." The knowledge I learned--those facts and explanations--infused
my reaction to those works. I "got" them. I got to like them. I got to
appreciate them. I didn't appreciate them "as examples of Medieval art,"
or "as representatives of a discourse on didactic representations," or "as
typical exemplars of the diffusion of the remnants of the Byzantine
style as preserved in Bobbio and other locations," etc.
I liked and appreciated them because all of me, undivided, unfragmented,
*saw* their beauty and artistic quality.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
