And finally to return this thread to where we left off: Cheerskep, I hope you'll address some of that stuff we talked about above (Nabokov and the "how" etc.), because I'm starting to have a creeping suspicion we might be actually talking about the same thing but using different language.
To clarify my muddy bit about how the choices are "not in the text", I'd like to quote Max Raphael once again: "Art is an interplay, an equation of three factors - the artist, the world and the means of figuration. [A work of art] is always a synthesis between nature (or history) and the mind, and as such it acquires a certain autonomy This independence seems to be created by man and hence to possess a psychic reality; but in point of fact the process of creation can become an existent only because it is embedded in some concrete material." (quoted in Berger, "The WORK of Art") And Berger explains further: "It is this which gives works of art their incomparable energy. They exist in the same sense that a current exists: it cannot exist without substances and yet it is not itself a simple substance." This is empirical, not idealist (like Croce) - and I think it shows a way towards explaining HOW the source of a.e. is properly NOT in the object but in the process of creation as it is evidenced in the material - thus potentially reconciling the materialist and idealist stances. 18. maaliskuuta 2012 6.11 ARMANDO BAEZA <[email protected]> kirjoitti: > PICASSO'S work is very identifiableb&b& > B IsB that enough to consider all > his work as art? > > AB > > > ________________________________ > From: William Conger > <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, > March 17, 2012 6:29 PM > Subject: Re: descriptive / empirical aesthetics? > > It's > not certain that all works of art are works of art because there is the > reality of time and change.B 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.B 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."B Agreed. >> >>B "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"?B >>B >> >>B "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."B > 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.B B >> >> "The reason Nabokov > despised Faulkner, Mann and Camus is located inB >> 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.B >> >> "(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
