Wiliam writes: > 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" > The word 'explain' is key there. What would amount to an "explanation"? To say "one is wildly estatic about a particular work of art and let it go at that" doesn't explain anything. Even if we move in close and point at the specific places where the ecstatic wallop was greatest, it doesn't help much. For example, the following twelve lines constitute an entire poem by Dickinson. I remember when I first encountered it, at 22, its last two words occasioned an aesthetic moment that almost blew me off my chair. Why?
The soul selects her own society, Then shuts the door; On her divine majority Obtrude no more. Unmoved, she notes the chariot's pausing At her low gate; Unmoved, an emperor is kneeling Upon her mat. I've known her from an ample nation Choose one; Then close the valves of her attention Like stone.
