Could be considered Art by the younger couples or the lonely ones. ab On Dec 28, 2013, at 3:03 PM, William Conger wrote:
> 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.
