I wrote that I was about to deliver "Two somewhat arbitrary assertions, with 
no great back-up corroboration." 

The first assertion was this: 

"(1) An artist's or critic's "explanation" may lead to greater 
"understanding" of sorts, and "admiration" in a contemplator, but never to an 
"aesthetic 
experience" -- except of a bogus sort."

Whereupon Michael pounced:

"Are you saying that someone can experience at least two sorts of aesthetic 
experience, the bogus and the non-bogus? Explain that, please. Explain what you 
have in mind when you say bogus a. experience, and by inference, the 
non-bogus a. experience."

He then quotes my description of a "bogus a. experience":

"like the shallow awe that arose in the minds of young readers of Eliot's 
"The Wasteland" a couple of generations ago when they read the "Notes" to the 
poem."

Aw shoot, man, it's Sunday, and I said I didn't want to corroborate anything, 
I just wanted to run off at the mouth in a relaxed Sunday kind of way. But 
okay, here's what I had in mind.

I remember when I was a kid, from about eight till nineteen, I was much of 
the time an enormous phony, and there was no one I was more a phony with than 
with myself. When I read those "Notes" to "The Wasteland", I was knocked out by 
all this what I took to be palpable confirmation of the poem's (and the 
poet's) "art". I remember writing some short fiction at the time, and putting 
lots 
of footnotes in it, and cooing over my own "art". 

In fact I now think the   "Wasteland" notes are bullshit, not impossibly a 
very conscious gimmic dreamed up by Eliot or Pound. 

Still, at the time they awed me, and convinced me I was in the company of 
"artistic greatness". The experience was memorable, august, I thought, the sort 
of thing that grips great minds -- which I wanted to pretend to myself I had. 
In fact, however, it happened long before I ever derived from a poem an 
experience that I have since called "aesthetic". 

There must be others on this list who can recall some time in their youth 
when they were conned by cathedral-grand trappings into feeling they were in 
the 
presence of greatness. As a kid, I didn't have the right stuff of the kid who 
could see and say the emperor was bare-ass.   

In sum, what I may have thought of as an "a.e." back then I would now call 
something else. Pseudo aesthetic. Bogus.

Michael continued to come after me. But I'll save that for another posting. 




**************
Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a 
recession. 
(http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000002)

Reply via email to