In response to Michael: I generally agree with Michael's point but if one can explain a nuanced aesthetic reaction it might be more developed, more carefully reasoned, more clearly separating what is or seems to be essential to the aesthetic experience and what is not. For example it's easier to say one is wildly estatic about a particular work of art and let it go at that or one can try to explain a less enthused reaction that requires more examination of the subdued 'feeling'. wc
________________________________ From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 3:37 PM Subject: Re: comment invited William wrote: > If Cheerskep can discuss why he only finds Beth. Ninth "nice" then he will > partly explain the aesthetic experience. Does it matter if he feels poorly about a work, or middling about it, or ecstatic and can discuss that feeling? Would the general mechanism of reacting to a work of art, whatever the feeling, not be the same? I perceive X, which stimulates such and such a reaction (provokes a feeling or series or cluster of feelings), which I construe in a certain way or put into a given context, and I conclude that X wowed me/bored me/appalled me. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
