YOU are asking, That we who create, should change our reflections to satisfy yours. The problem i see is that at some point we would all agree on what art should be. Who that hell wants that!
ab On Dec 30, 2013, at 1:02 PM, saul ostrow wrote: > 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]
