To be sure, part of any process of mediation is personal -- relying on past experiences, previously gained competences, or background knowledge. But for all of this, I do not think that a rigorous definition of the term (for instance in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions) is needed for our purposes.
It is enough to point out that even your so-called 'pure' experience requires some background conditions in order for it to have any effect whatsoever. The simple fact is that no matter how we qualify things, no matter how many 'for me at time T's' we introduce, an experience is only able to be 'an experience of a determinate, or specific kind' through the complementary conceptual activity on the part of the experiencer. To the extent that this is true, then what we 'immediately experience' always possesses a set of background conditions for its intelligibility and hence is 'mediated.' On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 6:33 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > For me, a way to shuffle toward greater clarity on a question like this -- > i.e. is there always "mediation" between the observation of an event/object > and > the "impact"? -- is to try to summon up the "purest" example. I know I > can't > get a serviceable grasp on the question before I see what others have in > mind > when they say "mediation". > > A stage play about a rape would undoubtedly be experienced differently by a > viking marauder and a woman who had herself been raped. Is this > conditioning > of > the impact by memory what you have in mind with "mediation"? > > The "pure" example that comes to my mind is from music. I've always been > struck by how powerful the "impact" of certain music can be on very young > minds > who have never heard the likes before. I came from a blue-collar family > that > had no record player and never went to any sort of concert. But I'd sung in > school musicals and I was in a very pop chorus -- right up till the choral > master > decided we would sing Brahm's Requiem. For the next two years not a day > went > by without my singing some of the requiem to myself. Allegra Kent once told > me > she'd never even known there was such a thing as ballet before she saw her > first one -- and the impact was such that it became her entire life from > that > day on. > > My point: For those of who have had such experiences -- in several > different > "arts" -- it's hard to point at anything that we'd call "mediation". When > the > experience is "pure" like that, it's distantly like throwing a brick at a > window. Either it cracks the glass or it doesn't. Mediation doesn't seem > to > come > into it. > > In a message dated 4/3/09 5:48:39 PM, [email protected] writes: > > > > Mr Conger writes, > > > > "I agree that the impact of an artwork is immediate, which is almost the > > same as saying that a work of beauty is instantly felt. So in general I > > would agree with Miller that we don't need to know anything secondary to > the > > artwork to feel its effect on us, our perception, assuming that > perception > > is a constructed response to sensory events." > > > > I suppose that one of the things I would like to claim is that > 'immediacy' > = > > 'unrecognized mediation.' Reading a newspaper seems immediate, but there > > are a number of mediations, some physiological, some conceptual. I do > not > > see how gazing at a painting would be any different. In fact, I would > > venture to say that painterly innovations transform the way we see by > > contesting various ways of structuring and conceiving of pictoral space, > > plane, colour, etc. Is that not one of Goodman's central arguments > > concerning 'realism'? > > > > In any case, nothing is truly 'immediate' and there is usually something > > ideological about claims to immediacy > > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 5:22 PM, William Conger <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Well, I agree that the impact of an artwork is immediate, which is > almost > > > the same as saying that a work of beauty is instantly felt. So in > general > > I > > > would agree with Miller that we don't need to know anything secondary > to > > the > > > artwork to feel its effect on us, our perception, assuming that > perception > > > is a constructed response to sensory events. Where I do disagree with > > > Miller has to do with judging that perception in some public way, that > is, > > > in a way that another can share, not in feeling necessarily, but in > > > reasonable terms. Think that judging does not require the experience > of > > > beauty as the immediate emotional impact of a great artwork but is > likely > > > enhanced by it. The personal experience of beauty cannot be shared > except > > > through some analytic way and that is only "about" the experience and > not > > a > > > replication of it. > > > WC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> > > > To: [email protected] > > > Sent: Friday, April 3, 2009 9:26:21 AM > > > Subject: Re: Judging the late Titian > > > > > > Mr Asthetik asks: >Could you explain, Mr Miller, why artworks _should_ > be > > > immediately intelligible? > > > > > > > > > Ideas of 'work' and of 'beauty' are indeed theoretical contrivances -- > but > > > beautiful things can be made and enjoyably experienced without them. > > > (just > > > as birds can fly without a knowledge of aerodynamics). > > > > > > My own ideas of 'work' and 'beauty' are rather vaporous as theories go, > > > since > > > nothing is theoretically excluded. > > > > > > BTW -- although I do claim that "no other evidence is required to judge > a > > > painting other than what is presented by the painting itself" --- I am > > > not > > > asserting that "everyone should everyone be able to immediately > understand > > > a > > > work, be able to immediately feel its beauty" > > > > > > I would like to substitute the word ' eventually' for 'immediately' in > the > > > above sentence -- although our lives are too short to understand and > feel > > > the > > > beauty of more than a limited range of things. > > > > > > William and I disagree concerning what that project requires -- but > I'll > > > have > > > to respond to that on another day. > > > > > > > ************** > Worried about job security? Check out the 5 safest jobs in a > recession. > ( > http://jobs.aol.com/gallery/growing-job-industries?ncid=emlcntuscare00000003 > )
