Besides, the nature of one's educated taste is personal
and in a constant state of variability, not set in cement.
mando
On Feb 11, 2010, at 12:07 PM, Boris Shoshensky wrote:
" 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_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAA
A=
