Let me try to understand you. Art is a matter of either individual or group taste. Is it one or both even when they contradict one another?
Last time you checked? Checked what or who? You refer to anything "sensed". Does that subjective sense have any relation to the objective world? What is it that elicits that sense and how, if at all, does the sense replicate -- correspond to -- the something that elicits it? If beauty and ugliness can occupy the same space and are separated only by individual minds then what constitutes their individual reality. Are there ugly things in the world? If not then what does the concept of ugliness refer to, or from what is it derived? In short, do any concepts have reality aside from some surrogate in nature (the external reality)? Are ugly things in the world of the same order as tall things or heavy things or rocky things? My quick take on your comments lead me to conclude that you think there is such a reality as beauty but it is entirely subject to each individual's whim or belief. In that case it can't be defined or communicated. If it can't be defined and communicated, can it exist? You can't have it both ways. If ugly things are simply statements of belief without independent evidence and are purely individual, how can we be sure they exist except as someone's unsupported belief or fantasy? wc ----- Original Message ---- From: ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, December 3, 2010 9:56:47 PM Subject: Re: "...A shift in aesthetic judgment that replaced the classical "this is beautiful" with "this is art"." Art is still a matter of individual or group taste, last time i checked. The subjects/objects/things/words/colors/sounds/forms etc,,or anything that is sensed still applies. Beauty and ugly still occupy the same space, separated only by the individual minds. These are conclusion reach by time,which may be baseless to all others. AB From: William Conger <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, December 3, 2010 4:58:04 PM Subject: Re: "...A shift in aesthetic judgment that replaced the classical "this is beautiful" with "this is art"." What reasons do you have? It would help if you elaborated instead of just confirming or denying some view. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, December 3, 2010 1:29:19 PM Subject: Re: "...A shift in aesthetic judgment that replaced the classical "this is beautiful" with "this is art"." Not so. Both still apply, but with a deeper understanding. The object continues to be expressed. Ab ________________________________ From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, December 3, 2010 12:45:20 AM Subject: "...A shift in aesthetic judgment that replaced the classical "this is beautiful" with "this is art"." http://cgi.ebay.com/Kant-After-Duchamp-NEW-Thierry-Duve-/150526996682
