It's not certain that all works of art are works of art because there is the reality of time and change. Some works of art, once kown to exist no longer exist, no longer exist in the original form, no longer exist as originals, may have never existed, do exist but are no longer 'generally agreed' to be art, and so on.
If there is the so-called a.e. then it must be shown independently of any socially construed category of objects that presumably produce the a.e. It might be evoked by bird's nest or a statue of Venus or anything at all -- or nothing at all? -- and thus can't be limited to what has already been called art. WC ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, March 17, 2012 12:18:52 PM Subject: Re: descriptive / empirical aesthetics? > John, you write: > "I am not saying ANY works of art are good or bad, because I don't believe > it can be done without ending up with a prescription of what art should > be." Agreed. > > "what I AM saying: "Look, the fact is that ALL works > of art ARE works of art, and your opinion of them is irrelevant."" > Irrelevant to what? My opinion of a work is very relevant to me, the contemplator. Incidentally, am I right in assuming you no longer hold that every object intentionally produced by any person is a "work of art"? > > > "we can cut the nonsense and quite literally > start DEALING with art (and no I don't mean the art market by that, > hehe!)" > I'm not being ornery when I ask what you have in mind with "Deal with it." Try to uncover the artist's "intention"? That has its anecdotal interest, but if the work leaves me feeling cold, flat, weary and unprofited, I have very little interest in what effect he was aiming to achieve. His intention will not save the play for me. > > "The reason Nabokov despised Faulkner, Mann and Camus is located in > their (according to him, bad) choices. The original > source of the aesthetic displeasure is not located in the TEXT (it's only > a carrier), but in the bad choices - bad artistry - of the writer." > But where are a writer's "choices" manifested if not in the text? His "ACT of choosing" -- selecting this word instead of that one, this scene, this display of character -- are invisible to us. When Faulkner wrote that the old and overweight Delsey came down the stairs with "terrific slowness", that struck me as marvelously effective "choice of phrase". For me, Faulkner's choice is the phrase. His ACT of choosing, the activity in his mind before putting pen to paper, is forever hidden from me. Tell me what kind of "choice" Nabokov abhorred if not text. > > "(The formalism I mean is the Russian brand - Sklovski, Tynyanov etc. - > the > idea that aesthetic experience is derived from HOW a work is made, and > that > all ideological etc. content is entirely secondary." > > I confess the notion behind that "HOW" is a mystery to me. I know that when I write a play all kinds of consideration lie behind every line -- revelation of character, impact on other characters onstage, etc. And I also try to imagine how it will "land" in the audience. I may judge that a line that would certainly be understood by the listening character onstage will be opaque to the audience. What to do? I choose a solution. My choices may be regularly drab or unconvincing, or boring -- but that would be because I'm a poor playwright. Is that the sort of "HOW" you and Sklovski have in mind? Are you addressing my invisible ACT, or the product of the act: the text? > > 17. maaliskuuta 2012 17.40 <[email protected]> kirjoitti: > > > John -- I'm not altogether sure what you have in mind when you say > > "formalism". > > > > But, to me, your following line suggests something important about your > > position (The issues are "personal" preferences -- Jones always loves > the > > flute, Smith always hates it, etc.): "What I AM saying is that these > issues > > should not > > enter the artistic appreciation of a work." > > > > Your line seems to reveal a belief in an objective fact-of-the-matter > about > > "art", almost as though you're saying, "Look, the fact is that some > works > > of art are good and others simply aren't. Deal with it!" > > > > I don't agree with that. As a scholar of Nabokov, you must know that he > > despised Faulkner, Thomas Mann and Camus. Did Nabokov lack "artistic > > appreciation" of written works? You can't think so if you've read his > > appreciations of > > Austen, Dickens, and Tolstoi. Once we're convinced of a reader's sincere > > and focused attention to a work, there is no possibility of refuting his > > "subjectivist" response. It's wrong-headed to say, "Well, you OUGHT to > > like it!" > > "Art" is one of the foggiest words in our language because it so often > is > > mistakenly used to indicate a mythical absolute ontic status.
