" So, I can only say that I seriously believe that a hypothetical person viewing a piece of artwork should avoid an attitude of critical differentiation."
I agree that we should approach any work of art without any prejudice. However critical differentiation comes into play if that work of art is not in a harmony with the nature of person's educated taste. Boris Shoshensky ---------- Original Message ---------- From: "Mike Mallory" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Joy of Art Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 10:45:45 -0800 >> >To make the most of the experience, she needs to open herself up to the >> >voice >> of the artwork and to be willing to follow what it has to say into her >> depths Miller writes: >> Or maybe, after a quick glance, she should just ignore it because as >> your >> character Time might suggest, time is limited. >> >> Without that act of critical differentiation, your service does not seem >> to >> seriously address the question of what the hypothetical person is >> suppossed to >> be doing when she stops to look at a painting. >> >> BTW - what was with all Hare Krishna stuff in the beginning? It seemed to >> create a tone of buffoonery. ____________________________________________________________ I wrote: MIKE Sometimes it's just paint on canvass. Sometimes we are not ready to hear what the painting has to say. Other times the painting may just not say anything significant. I stress an open and engaging aesthetic attitude because that attitude is a necessary precondition to a fulfilling relationship between a viewer and a work of art. Some pieces "win over the viewer" from the outset and people will open up because they immediately like the colors or texture or subject matter. But, I admonish viewers not to let first impressions determine their openness to art. The problem with "critical differentiation" is that a critical mind tends to close down. IMO the appropriate aesthetic attitude is non-judgmental. I am not denying that, separate from the engagement of art, there is room for those who wish to discuss the way people respond to art and to categorize artwork based on responses or correlate various artistic approaches with specific responses. But, this kind of analysis is more likely to interfere with an aesthetic experience than to support it. "Is this good art?" is simply not a helpful question. Of course knowledge of the technique, materials and artistic traditions can support an appreciation of artwork, but these features tend to be non-judgmental frames of reference. So, I can only say that I seriously believe that a hypothetical person viewing a piece of artwork should avoid an attitude of critical differentiation. As to the Bhakti Yoga chanting, I am fortunate enough to know my audience. I know that they are somewhat familiar with Kirtan and while it can conjure up images of bald headed chanters in airports, my target audience will accept the form as a legitimate expression of devotion to a deeper reality; they will not be so parochial as to reject it out-of-hand. I write about one of these worship services every year and am grateful for the opportunity to express myself in this way. I take what I do with these as an art form. The gathering music becomes a "Frame" separating what will follow from the mundane. The repetition in Kirtan, along with its touch of the exotic, works well in the function. And, this particular chant, while not an "overture" helps to establish with its lyrics, "I have learned to live in the presence of the Lord" a theme later repeated in the text that "Beauty" is a "promise of perfection". Mike Mallory ____________________________________________________________ Weight Loss Program Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/c?cp=c5sBLaUiFHLIPddUe5Zj9AAAJ1Gc l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=
