My 'as hominem' was a an effort for a little humor. Obviously, Cheerskep is not open to a little, qite gentle, humor. Yet , after all, it was Cheerskep who likened his aesthetic ecstasy to sexual orgasm. So what is one to do if not to assume that if one event stands for another then both share something in common? In this case that's the ecstacy Cheerskep has in mind and if that ecstacy is elusive to understanding with respect to art, then, according to Cheerskep's own metaphorical construct, it's not elusive to understanding with respect to sexual experience. My philosophical hero of the moment, Li Zuhan would most likely approve of Cheerskep's metaphor because it is 'materially' based in longstanding human psychological and cultural experience, thus 'sedimented' and related to Marxist philosophy.
As for the artist being a most attentive crafsman in doing his work, and thus not given to 'distancing' I object. I think it's true of course that attention to craft or process in terms of handling materials and tools is a part of the artist's task and thus rightfully requiring some attention, I think it's far more true (truer?) that the real sense of 'distancing' is a matter of criticality, what Saul would call an 'affect 'or what I would be happy enough to call 'paying attention to the broader art-world consciousness', what a serious artist develops over time. After some time an artist does have a practised craft, as though it were second nature, not something one struggles with. What the artist struggles with is that criticality, a getting into the mind of the artwrold, as if art itself was a global intellect with which one has dialogue. The question becomes, "Is this a painting (or sculpture, or whatever) that adds to the global discoure of what is now possible as a painting?" To ask that question one must be into the mind of art, as if, again, it was a mind with its memories, desires, crimes and miracles. One must be art. It is a condition fraught with contradictions but not necessarily the fumbling problems of craft. after all, the most amazing artowrks the world can know are very often done with skills anyone can master. what one cannot easily master is criticality, being in the mind of art, as a pretense. I think it misses the point altogether to equate the artist at work to an elevator repairman searching for a quick fix. It's not even funny whereas likening the 'preferred by Cheerskep" aesthetic experience to sexual orgasm is kinda funny, and thoroughly human and not trivializing. wc ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 2:28 PM Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ecstasy In a message dated 12/28/13 12:48:00 PM, [email protected] writes: > Cheerskep's wish to limit the quest for understanding aesthetic > experience to > something akin to sexual orgasm suggest to me a simple desire for more > sex. > I've never on this forum tried to LIMIT the quest for understanding; I claim that with my repeated urging of listers to examine the feeling occasioned by "art" has been an attempt to EXPAND the quest. This forum has for years talked about many interesting topics in aesthetics, but, for me, this aesthetic ecstasy has been a mystery at the heart of "art", and I've always thought we ought to look into it. William writes further: "I wonder if the people who actually make art - being so engaged in the process, etc., don't have the 'orgasm' Cheerskep considers the proof of aesthetic experience because they must maintain distance. Wc" William touches on something interesting here. But my guess as to why the creative artist is not in a constant state of aesthetic ecstasy is that they CAN'T maintain the distance required. The working artist is for most of his work day like a highly skilled craftsman -- say, an architect who's also the construction engineer responsible for building the whole "beautiful" structure. The engineer may have at the back of his mind a vision of the completed work, but at any given moment he's likely to be inside a dark shaft trying to figure out how to use this elevator shaft as also the conduit for electrical wiring and air-condition pipes. It's hard to thrill to the gorgeous total-building design at moments like that. Even so, many working artists get occasional jolts of exultation as they solve today's demand for a certain effect right here. I'd also respond to William that I think he has it wrong when he says "Cheerskep considers [the orgasm-like aesthetic ecstasy to be] the PROOF of aesthetic experience". I can't be sure what William has in mind with 'proof' there. I don't think of experiencing a taste-delight as "proving" that one was hungry or even had an appetite. It may be thought of as proving something about the taste buds or the pleasing quality of the food consumed. Which, if we think about it, may be an exact comparison to what I've been asking all along: What is going on when someone has an a.e.? Rephrased: What does one's having an a.e. prove? William has asserted he never uses "ad hominem" in his posting. I think he often does. It should be beneath him to laugh off my aesthetic quest as simply a manifestation of a desire for more sex. Beware of disdain, William. It's the first resort of the baffled.
