William: Please remind me of how you understand aesthetics - or is it just
another word for conjecture?
Perhaps what you meant by an error in data was an error in the implications
of data. Or, do you doubt that data would indicate which art works sold for
the most money?
However anyone understands mysterious and fuzzy (some of us here seem to see
those as hallmarks of works of art), neuroscience is not going to be more
than of background interest in elaborating aesthetics. It will surely inform
us how the meat of the brain works, what areas are activated when impinged
upon by a stimulus. How we conjecture value will remain another process.
Mixing systems: Yup. That's my point. Neuroscience is a different system,
with different rules and different perspective than aesthetics.
Geoff C
From: William Conger <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Reading Shaw : Chapter 2
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:11:22 -0800 (PST)
You are mixing systems. While it is a matter of fact that one can
determine which works of art sold for the most money in a given year, it is
pure conjecture to determine which artworks are the most beautiful. This
is a simple error in logic and data. Same goes for the word mysterious.
And fuzzy.
WC
--- On Thu, 12/18/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Reading Shaw : Chapter 2
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 3:52 PM
> Just as: an economic (or accounting) analysis might divulge
> which paintings
> sold for the most money in '08 but still leave what was
> beautiful, or true
> as mysterious as ever. (As fuzzy as ever?)
> Geoff C
>
>
> >From: [email protected]
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: Reading Shaw : Chapter 2
> >Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:34:32 EST
> >
> >Even the notion behind each usage of the phrase
> "Art is science" is
> >woefully
> >indeterminate. Besides the fact that what's in each
> of our minds varies
> >from
> >one mind to another (and even varies in a given mind as
> the person thinks
> >about
> >it), I suspect that, even if we could agree on a model
> description, under
> >close inspection it too would have many key blank
> areas, like the old maps
> >that
> >would have large patches with the label
> "unexplored".
> >
> >I say "key" gaps because, to me, it's
> unclear what we are to hope for if we
> >correlate neural activity with (to begin with)
> "conscious" thought and
> >feeling
> >as we "create" a work or react to one.
> Suppose we had a map of the neural
> >activity in Shakespeare's mind, and we could say,
> "This is what was going
> >on in
> >the meat of WS's brain as he wrote his "To be
> or not to be" speech. What
> >would
> >this tell us beyond certain correlations?
> >
> >I'm not at all saying we should quit looking to
> neurology for any
> >revelations
> >of interest to artists and contemplators, because I
> must grant this
> >important concession: We don't KNOW what the
> "scientists" will come up
> >with, so it's
> >ridiculous to assert they can't come up with
> anything. Happily, throughout
> >the
> >ages scientists continued to "look" even when
> they had no idea what they'd
> >find. Thus the invention and development of, say, the
> microscope. Who knew
> >it
> >would eventually reveal "germs"?
> >
> >Still, my inability even to imagine how neurology could
> be useful in
> >aesthetics does curtail my interest in the subject.
> I'm not unable to grasp
> >the
> >implications of gross correlations -- e.g. we have
> identified some nerve
> >precincts
> >that are indisputably necessary for certain
> "experience". E.g. if a given
> >neural patch in a brain is damaged or undeveloped to
> begin with, the person
> >may,
> >say, be unable to taste, or to smell, or to see colors.
> But that's a
> >world
> >away from saying much about why a given patch has
> creative imagination. My
> >color-perception is fine, but I would never, ever, do
> the inventive,
> >pleasing things
> >with colors that a certain artist-friend of mine can.
> If a scientist were
> >able to say to me, "Look, her neural molecules in
> this area of the brain
> >are
> >arranged this way. Yours aren't," that'd
> tell me very little, and nothing
> >of
> >use. What, that a neurologist could tell me, WOULD be
> of creative use?
> >
> >
> >
> >**************
> >One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL
> Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo
> >Mail. Try it now.
> >(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&
> >ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
