William: I certainly DO think that human beings are both physical beings
whose physical structure and operations (anatomy and physiology) are both
very interesting and important and psycholgical beings whose experiences and
meanings are ineffable. Not either but both.
I don't see the relation of neuroscience to aesthetics (other than as
providing a mildly interesting background to our choices). I am not
proposing that the data on what works sold for what value is THE determinant
of aesthetic value. I AM suggesting that, given that this is an aesthetics
list serve, that one might anticipate some preoccupation with the nature of
aesthetic judgments. I am little interested in the neuroscience of what area
of the brain makes judgments. If, for example, some scientist determines
that the substantia nigra is crucial for the development of "x" judgment
about art, so what? If you're interested: fine. Enjoy. I will continue to
suspect that the judgment or decision flowing from the substantia nigra will
differ for different persons depending on their tastes, education, dogmatism
etc.
I suspect that knowing the compression ratio of an automobile would not be
relevant to the experience which led John Addams to compose "A Short Ride in
a Fast Machine". The compression ratio of an automobile is of critical
importance to say an automobile designer, mechanic, race car driver but not
to most drivers. The part of the brain which is activated upon listening to
music may be of interest to a neurologist or an audiologist but I doubt a
composer will compose differently according to neurological information. The
ineffable will surely be much more crucial.
Geoff C
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Conger" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: Reading Shaw : Chapter 2 and neuroscience
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
