I don't think I'd care in the situation under discussion,  but otherwise I'm 
afraid I do care.   Once, a collector wanted to hang one of my ptgs. sideways 
because of a space issue.  I was very adamant that he should not even think 
about doing that.  I've had my ptgs. reproduced backwards, upsidedown, cropped, 
and I am very vexed by such errors.  Whenever one of my works is reproduced for 
a book cover or ad or some such, I stipulate that no text can obscure any part 
of the work and I insist on no cropping of the image.  Black and white 
reproductions are ok, I suppose. 

 While all of that is different from someone actually twisting or stretching or 
shrinking the shapes in the composition, I guess I do have limits of tolerance. 
 As for someone saying, "but the work is better if hung sideways, or cropped, 
etc.," I suppose I'd say ok for you but not for me, and still insist on having 
it my way, if I can,  even if the person is right.  So aesthetic response is 
one thing, and I can't object to whatever it might be, but to actually change 
the work to suit or improve a response, no.  Art history is littered with those 
sorts of conflicts between patron and artist, where the patron, as owner, 
assumes the right to do whatever is desired to the work.  Nowadays there are 
ample legal precedents protecting the work and the artist. 

 Yet as a teacher of painting I regularly told students to change this or that 
and if they didn't do it I was annoyed, despite being wrong once in a while.

 As for the Arp test.  There is one Arp and the rest are fake Arps.  One might 
be able to improve a fake Arp, making it more like the real Arp,  but one can't 
say a fake Arp is a better Arp.  So the aesthetic test is a sham, measuring 
only whether or not people prefer fake Arps over a real Arp.  It says nothing 
about Arp's art.
wc
 

----- Original Message ----
From: Chris Miller <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 1:15:53 PM
Subject: Re: Beauty and the Brain: A Neural Approach to Aesthetics

Why couldn't  the experiment use a  computer morphed variations of an abstract
painting instead of sculpture?

Wouldn't a Conger painting serve the one just as well as an Arp sculpture
served the other?

Now tell us, William, would you really care if the vast majority of responders
got more pleasure from looking at  variations instead of the original of your
painting?

What relevance would  that "normative template for aesthetic response" have to
whatever "art" means to you?

BTW - hasn't research already established that the "blue landscape" (as Dutton
calls it) serves as such a template?




____________________________________________________________
Diet Help
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=UFu9-x8yamdYLVXemT2fCwAAJz6c
l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=

Reply via email to