Yes, at some level we are all human - just some are better than others. I for one think that the seeker - someone who is able to ask questions is superior to those who are self satisfied makers - who defend their products by dismissing all questions but those that affirm them
On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 3:51 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. > > I I should have added that the viewer likes it > or rejects it, as and artist we should not be > surprised by their reflections, Because as a > viewer i do the same of others, work. > > ab > > > On Dec 30, 2013, at 7:53 AM, William Conger wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > 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] [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/png which had a name of image.png]
