Re Miller's summary view of my interest in beauty, I will refer him to Donald Kuspit's lengthy essay re my painting to be published next month. Kuspit thinks I'm very interested in beauty and thus aesthetics. And I am.
I am actually not a big fan of a lot of late modernist art (much neo conceptual and neo minimal and multi-media stuff) which is not to say I don't understand it or find some wonderful examples now and then. I'm open-minded re what other artists do. I want to think of them as sincere and hard working, obsessed even. Quality always counts no matter what the genre is. For me, the best way to experience art is to pretend it was all made today, no matter when it was actuially made. WC --- On Tue, 12/23/08, Chris Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Enough "taste > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2008, 10:11 AM > Thanks for the tip, Cheerskep -- I've looked back at the > archives for June '07 > -- but disagree that " we did a fairly exhaustive job > of discussing that > subject. (taste)" Instead, the topic was diverted , > as usual, into your > special concern for "is-ness" > > Back then, the discussion focused on "consensus" > since so many listers prefer > to think of taste as a sociological phenomenon. (even if > most of them are > artists instead of sociologists) > > But since I am an aesthete -- I prefer to think of taste as > a personal ability > -- sort of like swimming. Such ability might have a wide > variety of styles > -- and everyone has their personal quirks and distinct > history of experience > -- but still -- either one sinks or one swims -- and to > some extent -- that > ability is measurable. (even if not with a stopwatch) > > Back in 06/07 , Cheerskep introduced an interesting example > culled from his > experience in selecting the best readers to be hired as > editors -- and I would > like to hear more about how he made those decisions. > > And now -- in 12/08, William has offered an interesting > discussion of his > "sense of something beautiful" -- which he does > not especially trust since " > he is "well acquainted with a large variety of > artworks, some of which > contradict the character of 18-19C landscape" > > I am especially interested when he writes: "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." > > Because -- this seems to be where his appetite for the > beautiful runs smack > into the ideologies of modern art - for which he is a > professional partisan. > He doesn't want to be known as old-timey -- he wants to > be a progressive man > of the modern era. > > And for some reason -- he just cannot accept that his > desire for beauty is as > tangential to the world of contemporary art -- as it is to > the worlds of > motorbike racing, cattle breeding, investment banking, > information technology > etc. > > He cannot accept that there is really no need for him to > either modify his > desires or reaffirm them. He could allow himself to enjoy > beauty -- just as > much as my friend the systems programmer does -- as he > makes and collects > beautiful ceramics in every moment of his spare time. > > And this -- I find fascinating -- especially since, > way-back-when, it was > William who introduced an idea of beauty that was quite > different from the one > that Derek used -- which was closer to what I would call > "pretty". > ( > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click to learn how you can earn extra cash in day trading. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/PnY6rc2VyxQtpORDH5WPQIZtPxQDdN > zTTmmL5ssDI1qMaedZvQzxq/
