>From the ugly to the sublime in the individual mind or minds. Aesthetics is still it's umbrella, to me. ab
________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 1:34:02 PM Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art Aesthetics overtakes "the Beautiful" about 1918. go graph aesthetics, the romantic,the beautiful,the picturesque,the sublime. It looks funny. KAte Sullivan -----Original Message----- From: William Conger <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 3:40 pm Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art The word aesthetics, like any word is arbitrary and stands for meaning only in context, whether individual and/or socially habituated. What Ngram shows is the frequency of a word or term graphed over time in relation to some other related or contrasting word or term. Thus it tracks general concepts, not meanings. Does have value, I think because it suggests when meanings may have slipped away from particular concepts in the larger, literate Western society. The concept that was ordinarily elicited -- if indeed a concept may be elicited outside of language -- by the word aesthetics may not have changed but the ways the word is used now may be changing in the social language contexts. wc . ----- Original Message ---- From: Mike Mallory <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, December 20, 2010 1:10:27 PM Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art In addition to it's philosophic use, the term "aesthetics" is also used in reference to personal beauty products, treatments and care. Does google tell us whether it is the philosophy salon or beauty salon use that is changing? Mike Mallory ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:41 PM Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art >I think we all should know that according to the google Ngram viewer > the use of the wros aesthetics dropped sharply between 1995 and now in > printed sources. So they're callling it something else. What could that > be? > Kate Sullivan > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Conger <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Fri, Dec 17, 2010 12:47 pm > Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art > > OK. Boris does not want to examine the idea but to reject it on > solipsistic > grounds. Maybe it's because he resents any implication that > free-individualism > is shaped by cultural habits. I don't have a clue as to what the > mumbo-jumbo > regarding evolution means except everything changes. > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Fri, December 17, 2010 11:18:22 AM > Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art > > William's challenge on artists is incorrect, in my case. I did not have > any > info on John Marin or Demuth before I saw the work and instantly was > intrigued by the talent. If I was only influenced by institutional or > cultural > canon I would not appreciate mostly unknown folk arts of different > cultures, > including music and dance, and would like crap dominating present > institutionalized culture. I am cold to Warhol and many others > regardless > 'experts' praises. > I was fascinated by Russian Avant-Guard instantly, being very young and > uneducated in modernity which was forbidden to be shown even in print > in the > USSR. > > Before I go to the second question I have to correct your distortion of > my > phrase which changes the meaning of what I said. > I said I believe in objective criteria not standards. There is a > difference, > for me. > My use of 'I believe' is different from 'I have belief'. > It is 'I know', but subjectively, because it based on my professional > observations and not on cold scientific research. > Independent criteria of beauty is its anti-entropic organizational > quality > leading to the evolutional progress of matter and mind. > Boris Shoshensky > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art > Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:52:37 -0800 (PST) > > Boris; > > Your comments seem to confirm my argument that we tend to prefer the art > we've > been told is good, not only by individuals in our midst but by the > canonic > standards of art history. All to the artists you mention are artists > whose > work > has been widely, even universally, discussed as excellent within the > canon of > Western art. So how can you be sure your opinions of that work are free > from > institutional and cultural influence that even predetermine those > opinions? > I > say you can't. > > Further, I am puzzled by your statement that you "believe" in objective > standards of beauty and thought. If such standards exist why is it > necessary > to > believe in them? Ordinarily we distinguish between believing and > knowing. > Believing is accepting something as true without sufficient independent > evidence where as knowing is a result of validating independent > evidence. > For > instance we can say we "believe" that a human has an immortal soul but > we > "know" > that human life is mortal. > > Needless to say, I'd be interested in what those independent criterion > of > beauty > in art and thought are. So far, it seems that no one in history has > ever > identified them. > > WC > >
