I don't do art to please others. Although i did, when i was making toys for all the major toy companies, but even then ,i tried to please myself first with great success. ab
On Dec 29, 2013, at 7:06 PM, saul ostrow wrote: > 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]
