Exactly why I stay with the human body, and I presume, why you stay
with color forms.
Nothing is more Universal than nature, even if we can't perceive it's
evolution.
mando
On Dec 22, 2008, at 1:33 PM, William Conger wrote:
I think it's extremely difficult for someone to say what he or she
considers beautiful and even more difficult if not impossible to
objectify salient features of the beautiful as universal principles.
The whole notion of the beautiful is completely subjective but
probably similar enough among particular groups to be roughly noted
in the form of as-if or metaphor.
I think I have a sense of something beautiful when I am looking for
it or desire it in some way, actively or passively. For example, I
do like romantic landscape painting of the 18-19C. So when I see
an especially striking example of that my desire is evoked and
satisfied and I say I have experienced a beautiful painting. But
since I am well acquainted with a large variety of artworks, some
of which contradict the character of 18-19C landscape painting, I
have a predilection and a desire for many types of art and I
sometimes seek them out, first this and then that. On occasion I
am surprised or annoyed when my desire for the beautiful is
contradicted by what I had expected to be beautiful in fulfilling
my desire. Then I need to deal with the challenge or reaffirm my
desires and reject the experience.
Thus in looking foe something quasi-universal in the subjectivity
of the beautiful, I offer the idea that we first have the desire
for the beautiful and that desire has some clearly or poorly
recognized traits (like 18-19C klandscape painting. I think of
that desire as a belief...one with more or less elastic boundaries,
as it were.
I've said before that I think beliefs are fundamental to
consciousness and guide our construction of perception, action,
experience. They are also a form of desire. Living according to
our elastic and ever-evolving beliefs is a form of satisfying our
desires which is the experience of the beautiful. In this little
plan, any and all experiences can be beautiful. Since we know that
is not the case then either our beliefs are faulty or the beautiful
is left undefined. I think we can add another quasi universal
subjective state here. I suggest reflection. I mean "distanced"
in the same way as Santayana (?) proposed...something contemplated
in repose.
My proposal re aesthetics (the experiences of the beautiful) rests
on three principles. 1. Belief. 2. Desire. Reflection. Reasonable
or a dud?
WC
--- On Mon, 12/22/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[email protected]> wrote:
From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Enough "taste"
To: [email protected]
Date: Monday, December 22, 2008, 2:16 PM
Cheerskep: If you write it often enough, I sometimes get it.
(And, I wasn't
around then.)
Geoff C
From: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:15:49 EST
In a message dated 12/22/08 1:17:14 PM,
[email protected] writes:
On Dec 22, 2008, at 12:38 PM, [email protected]
wrote:
To avoid starting again on square one of
"taste", I recommend
interested
listers go back to the old aesthetics-l
archive for the month of
June, 2007, where
we did a fairly exhaustive job of discussing
that subject.
If you have the stomach for it. Unless you are
speaking tongue in
cheek (figuratively)? <g>
I am (I infer) with you on this: I was hoping
this reminder would kill
dead
any new "taste" discussion. But just now my
mail box tells me Geoff is
soldiering onward...
**************
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)
