William wrote: > 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.
I believe the a.e. one gets from a WoA is unique to it, and so art a.e.'s are innumerable. Speaking from my own experience, my reactions to different WoAs are individual and particular to each work. The only thing in common with my art a.e.'s is that they are provoked by a work of art. But the a.e.'s one feels in the presence of natural phenomena are more general: sunsets provoke one kind of aesthetic response, regardless of the particulars of the sky (as long as there are clouds in it, I suppose), a vast mountain landscape another, a field of flowers a third, a bird another a.e, etc. I haven't given this much critical attention, but it seems to me that this os a crucial difference. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
