Some argue that the viewer is the creator at least as much as the artist. Picasso was one of the first moderns to claim that the viewer 'completes' the artist's work when viewing it. Some argue that all of the creativity is constructed by the viewer. (Death of the author argument). Many artists claim that they don't know or really care about the aesthetic power of their work since they think it's all based in viewer response anyway.
If we look at culture and its histories from the standpoint of the viewer, imagining it as a collective and evolving personal viewpoint then it would seek to confirm that it -- the collective evolving culture/histories -- decides the nature of art or aesthetics and creativity as its own self-reflection. So here's a quip: Artists propose; audiences dispose. All of the little folklore artist quips we get from Mando and sometimes me are interesting and have their place in discourse, and are especially interesting when uttered by artists, but of course they amount to almost nothing as contributions to intellectual discourse among a group of people who strive for a consensus regarding some idea, view or other. It's far more useful for participants to try to present ideas logically and with commonplace words than it is to fall back on quips, aphorisms, slogans and simple ego-statements (the "because I'm an artist and I say so" syndrome) which are better suited to consumer advertising and movie banners than to intellectual talk. wc ________________________________ From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:59 PM Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ecstasy 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]
