whoa to those of us who seek ecstasy in the work of others
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:05 PM, saul ostrow <[email protected]> wrote: > consequently, the artist seeks his own pleasure at his own hand and thinks > little / belittles others - > > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:59 PM, armando baeza <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Those that do not create, look for the pleasure in ready made art start >> where >> artist ended, >> a reflective positive a,e ,or a negative one, or a mixture both. >> >> ab >> On Dec 29, 2013, at 5:40 PM, saul ostrow wrote: >> >> > but what of those who do not create but receive >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:28 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Then we shouldn't call the initial impression aesthetic until after >> >> it has rolled through the other stages? I suppose this lets the man who >> >> weeps with pleasure at both Crystal Chandeliers and una poco fa off >> >> the hook. He can always claim that when he thought it over he realized >> >> that Crystal Chandeliers was a mistake. >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: saul ostrow <[email protected]> >> >> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> >> >> Cc: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> >> >> Sent: Sun, Dec 29, 2013 9:42 am >> >> Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ecstasy >> >> >> >> My point is there is a stimuli (an impression) the affect (consequence) >> >> of >> >> that is the discernment (the judgment) that the experience I have had >> >> is one I >> >> come to associate with something called the aesthetic ( in that it >> >> primarily >> >> stimulates/ appeals to my senses) - reflecting up this I determine if >> >> I have >> >> found it to be pleasurable or not and to what degree - >> >> >> >> The experience is a reflex (partially intuited and partially tacit) - >> >> the >> >> reflection and discernment learned - the determination subjective >> >> (taste) >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> On Dec 29, 2013, at 9:09 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> >> >>> aesthetic effect is ecstasy,judgement follows, or the result of the >> >>> effect is judgement,or the judgement is ecstasy after the effect and >> >>> whatever follows after in the shape of reflection and and the forming >> >>> of an opinion is also called judgement? >> >>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: saul ostrow <[email protected]> >> >>> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> >> >>> Cc: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> >> >>> Sent: Sun, Dec 29, 2013 1:25 am >> >>> Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ecstasy >> >>> >> >>> Aesthetic effect - ecstasy >> >>> Aesthetic effect - judgement >> >>> >> >>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> >> >>> On Dec 28, 2013, at 9:38 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Saul said that judgment followed the aesthetic ecstasy earlier in a >> >>>> different phrasing. I also think affect is a better word than >> >>>> experience and certainly than ecstasy, which has other connotations >> >>>> and is a surprising choice on Cheerskep's part.The aesthetic affect >> >>>> can vary from a what was that to a much longer and more complex event >> >>>> and I would suppose that both extremes would have their own kinds of >> >>>> reflection. >> >>>> >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>> From: Cheerskep <[email protected]> >> >>>> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> >> >>>> Sent: Sat, Dec 28, 2013 6:25 pm >> >>>> Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ecstasy >> >>>> >> >>>> In a message dated 12/28/13 4:08:06 PM, [email protected] writes: >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> might aesthetic reflection work better - and allow the ecstasy be >> >>>>> understood as affect >> >>>>> >> >>>>> For some it certainly may. For me it doesn't, because I see three >> >>>>> >> >>>> different >> >>>> stages in the kind of aesthetic event I'm addressing. First, the >> >>>> raw-data >> >>>> encounter with the work -- seeing it, hearing it, reading it. Second, >> >>>> the >> >>>> almost immediate reaction -- the feeling I'm now calling aesthetic >> >>>> ecstasy. >> >>>> Third, any subsequent attempt to articulate what just happened, and >> >>>> >> >>> how >> >>> >> >>>> I felt, >> >>>> and (to the extent possible) why. I persist in feeling third stage >> >>>> amounts to my "reflections". They can go on for a long time after the >> >>>> ecstasy >> >>>> itself is over. If you go to GOOGLE and enter the two words >> >>>> "Reflections on" you >> >>>> see a large number of essays with titles that begin that way, and, >> >>>> >> >>> for >> >> >> >>> me, >> >>>> that period of reflection is, for me, unmistakably different from the >> >>>> ecstasy. (Burke's REFLECTIONS ON THE FRENCH REVOLUTION runs to 98,000 >> >>>> words. In >> >>>> literature-appreciation, there have been "Reflections on" given short >> >>>> stories >> >>>> that are longer than the story itself, and they are cerebral events, >> >>>> not the >> >>>> "feeling" itself.) >> >>>> >> >>>> But exactly what I've been claiming is that individual "words" do not >> >>>> "have" "meanings". That second stage -- the "ecstasy" -- is >> >>>> >> >>> emotional, >> >> >> >>> a >> >>>> "feeling", and I personally think of "reflections" as something >> >>>> collected in >> >>>> tranquility. If I burn my hand by encountering flame at the stove, I >> >>>> wouldn't think >> >>>> of the pain as a reflection on the flame. But that's my own personal >> >>>> word-use. If a different use works for someone else, there's no way I >> >>>> can call >> >>>> them "wrong". At most I might claim their use will occasion an >> >>>> >> >>> unwanted >> >>> >> >>>> notion >> >>>> in many readers (I often did that as an editor), but I could be wrong >> >>>> about >> >>>> that. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > [image: Inline image 1] >> > >> > [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/png which had a name >> of >> image.png] >> >> > > > -- > > [image: Inline image 1] > > > -- [image: Inline image 1] [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/png which had a name of image.png]
