I don't understand aesthetics except as a category of philosophical inquiry, which is to say that there are many approaches to the issue. All of them are subjective except when we sometimes objectify them for the sake of convenience and presumed agreement.
My sentence was clear. I said that prices are facts; that is, quantifiable. For example, data is availiable to show that Damien Hirst sold his work for the record prices this year, earning over 200 million for himself at a recent auction. Does that make it the best art of the year? No. Who would say there's a correspondence between price and quality for anything at all? It's your mistake to conflate the two categories, price and quality, if that's what you intended, as It seems you did. You seem to speak with aurthority when you say that neuroscience cannot do much regarding aesthetics, that the brain is "meat", etc. This is what I mean by my charge that you and others "trivialize" neuroscience. Of course, the brain is substance but not meat (muscle) in the usual sense. Again, if any thought,m simple or profound, is not originated in the brain, then where, may I ask, is it located, and what form does it take in a universe that is aptly recognized as material? What literature do you rely on to make your summative remarks? I have suggested people like Semir Zeki (Inner Vision: An Exploration of Art and The Brain) and other neuroscientists. I don't know what you mean by "background" as if to imply that the measured results of neurological study so far are only dimly relevant to aesthetics. I think not. I think, reading with Zeki and others, that certain "aesthetic" preferences are preferred by the human brain and are likely evolutional. You seem to be invested in some notion that places thought or feeling or what? beyond the material. I could say whatever that is, it's beneath the material, to suggest that it can and should be the trivialized, as yet unnamed materiality. None of this has the least bearing on the importance or magnificance of thought. What is lost if we say thought and even aesthetics is a matter of material brain fuctioning? Nothing except ignorance. Also, I'm not sure that we don't aggrandize aesthetics, making the term much bigger than it really is. After all, when it first became a topic, it was only about "taste" an affectation of the educated and open-minded person of the Enlightenment. Nowadays, in an era of privileging cultural bias, serious thinkers seem to prefer societal approbation as a necessary feature of the aesthetic, the creative, the artistic. In the end, it doesn't matter what we call the aesthetic since there will always be something preferred for its own sake...which is called art. Don't you think it's about time that humans begin thinking of themselves as physical beings and not as etherial angels or some inexplicable mixture of immaterial soul and brute body? Again, as material, nothing is lost and knowledge is to be gained. WC --- On Thu, 12/18/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[email protected]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Reading Shaw : Chapter 2 and neuroscience > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, December 18, 2008, 4:59 PM > 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
