No just that creativity not be self attributed - when it is it tends to be egotistical or narcissism
Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 30, 2013, at 7:46 PM, armando baeza <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
