I believe that only each individuals can determine their own feelings between personal likes and dislikes, yet persuasion by the more experienced can always sway any individual that allows it. Yet Non-aesthetic and aesthetics in individual minds are often times interchangeable . If aesthetics has always been about the sublime, why does it need degrees of ugly to get it there. I see the word "Aesthetics "as just a word that encompasses all matter of individual tastes,for the rich to play with.
ab On Dec 10, 2013, at 3:50 PM, William Conger wrote: > The whole point of seeking a definition of the aesthetic is to distinguish it > from the non-aesthetic. If, as claimed below, there is no distinction between > the aesthetic and any other 'sudden' feeling then we don't have a definition. > If it can't be falsified, as the scientists like to say, it can't be claimed > as a defintion or theory. I would suppose that the sensation of being shot is > not an aesthetic one. When I stub my toe on the damned table it is not an > aesthetic feeling. In history, the aesthetic has always been associated with > a sensation of euphoria or a sense of helpless dread or awe, as is typically > associated with the sublime. > > wc > > > ________________________________ > From: > armando baeza <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: > armando baeza <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 4:00 > PM > Subject: Re: comment invited > > > Tom, you ,once referred to an aesthetic > experience as when at the > final second of a football game your team caches the > long pass in > the end zone, winning the game. as an aesthetic experience as ( > pleasure) > And I agree with that. But another person of the opposing team felt > the > same aesthetic experience as (displeasure) > I take the word "aesthetic" to > be equal in meaning as the word "temperature" > A place one can feel extremely > cold to one that's extremely hot, and in > between. > ab > > > On Dec 9, 2013, at > 11:45 AM, Tom McCormack wrote: > >> On Dec 9, 2013, at 12:03 AM, armando baeza > wrote: >> >>> "Aesthetic experiences" as i originally understood it, was that > any thing >>> under the umbrella >>> between the two extremes of taste ,likes > and dislikes. >>> good-bad,ugly-beauty,etc could >>> be an "aesthetic > experience". >>> To me,that means that any sudden feeling of any kind from > nature or man >> made >>> art could >>> be an aesthetic feeling. >>> The problem I > see is that some people get a pleasant surprise feeling, >> while >>> others >>> > may feel the opposite from the same experience. Yet both are really >>> > "aesthetic >>> experiences",. >>> ab >> >> Not for me. Someone recently sent me a > series of precarious > mountain-climbing >> photos. Every single one was scary. I > guarantee I got a "sudden feeling" > from >> some of them. But I have no > inclination to call that feeling an "aesthetic >> experience". Why, though? I'm > ready to call the experience occasioned in me > by >> very disparate things like > a Dickinson poem, a Hokusae wood print, and >> Beethoven's Ninth "aesthetic > experiences", but not a photo of a gruesome > car >> crash, or the photo of > someone jumping out of the ninetieth floor on 9/11. >> Why? There'a lot to be > learned about just what is going on when we hear a >> Mozart piano concerto, or > watch Allegra Kent dancing >> L'aprhs-midi d'un faune.
