mando wrote;
On Nov 13, 2009, at 9:30 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
Where was the logic,argument, evidence, or persuasion when
William called
Mando's aesthetic response to 'The Bar at the Follies Bergere'
"truly
funny"?
Perhaps he would like to offer it now -- but I doubt that he can,
except
perhaps to backtrack and re-contextualize his remark, just as Saul
cautiously
backed off from his initial response to Mando: "Boy are you out of
the loop"
The fact is that William and Saul, as well as Mando, Chris, and
Boris, are
occasionally convinced that their personal judgments are correct
even if they
are unable to convince a skeptic that "certain properties of that
thing are in
fact beautiful"
The truth is, that, what we see as beautiful," Is beautiful" to each
one of us,
individually. That is based on our individual mind's experiences of
beauty.
The more one experiences, the more "subjective" judgments one makes.
If beauty was in the object, we would not have be discussing
aesthetics.
Science would have settled that long ago, and they may, yet.
mando
Because the judgment of beauty cannot always be reached by
whatever "sharable
elements are in the art object or contained by a definition of
aesthetic
experience or in some cultural experience termed aesthetic or an
organic
relationship between the elements in the art object and the cultural
experience of it."
Although, there's nothing wrong with trying, and I do agree that
exclusively
aphoristic assertions can be tiresome, and should be the last
resort instead
of the first.
...................
What Miller now calls aesthetics is nothing but unexamined
personal opinion.
If the question of aesthetics is simply reduced to unexamined and
therefore
unarguable solipsistic opinions, then why even discuss the subject
or even
mention it at all? When something is so personal, so subjective,
as to vanish
as a topic of inquiry even as it's mentioned, then it really
doesn't exist as
something that can be discussed. But Miller goes even further to
equate this
unexamined personal solipsism as the only identifier of art (as
opposed to his
use of the term "fashion"), which, if we dare to apply logic,
requires us to
admit that art cannot be mentioned, let alone identified
independently of the
solipsist. The alternative to this dead-end sort of thinking is to
argue that
there is some sharable, something public, about both aesthetics and
art. So
what is that? One position is that the sharable elements are in
the art
object
or contained by a definition of aesthetic experience. Another is
that the
sharable element is in some
cultural experience termed aesthetic; and the third position argues
for an
organic relationship between the elements in the art object and the
cultural
experience of it. Miller's position is outside of any arena of
discussion
because its authenticity requires absolute isolation, absolute
solipsism. But
this is his position on many issues. He's quite content to defend
it by
simply demanding that he is right. A few others here, such as
Mando and
Boris,
follow the same formula for credibility. They make aphoristic
assertions.
There's no logic, no argument, no evidence, no persuasion. In
logic it's
called the Appeal to Authority. It has its self-serving place, I
suppose, in
some fundamentalist religions, totalitarian regimes, slavery,
prisons,
advertising, but the whole tradition of intellectual civilization,
it has no
place.
____________________________________________________________
Weight Loss Program
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?
cp=S2OsazVCxYf4XHHhBXvD0wAAJz6c
l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAA
A
A=
