Jon, Adrian, List,
I think that "PURE aesthetics" is only an analytical wishful thinking...
aesthetics can not be considered /per se/, outside of ethics and logic
syntactics exists, also, only together with semantics and pragmatics
aesthetics is only a first of a second and a third
considered as a sign it can also be considered triadically
and as a "social practice" (Althusser), aesthetics can be considered
divided in a "theoretical practice", an "economical practice" and a
"political practice"
we can not only consider the pure theoretical aspect, but also a
practical and a strategical aspect...
so, we have to consider aesthetics, also as a social-cultural habit of a
concrete society and time context, that will have always a concrete
ethic and logic
On the other hand, "materiality, experience and representation" (Adrian)
is not a genuine triad for a [work of art]...
'materiality' is directly related to secondness, to a concrete
actualization of an artwork;
'experience' is ambiguous, could be considered as theoretical knowledge
(1ness), or an instrumental capacity (2ness), or as a social-cultural
experience by the artist;
and 'representation' can be related to theoretical knowledge as math or
geometry, graphic languages, Gestalt, etc. (aspects of 1ness), or it can
be related to a concrete capacity, skills, of using those knowledges for
the production of an artwork (aspects of 2ness), or it can be related to
what is represented (aspects of 3ness)...
I can offer an example of "applying Peirce" to the logical use of color in
https://www.academia.edu/16332326/A_Comprehensive_Treatment_of_Color_Submitted_to_the_Semiotic_Nonagon
and to those that are interested I can send you an other paper “Analyses
of the Bauhaus’s Preliminary Course under its Three Masters” (originally
published in a CD-ROM ofthe Proceedings of VIII IASS-AIS Congress
at//Lyon, France, 2004). Since it will be published in a book at
SUNY-Buffalo we will not upload it at Academia...
Regards
Claudio
--
Prof. Dr. Arch. Claudio F. Guerri
Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo
Universidad de Buenos Aires
Home address: Gral. Lemos 270 (1427) Buenos Aires Argentina
Telefax: (0054-11) 4553-4895 or 4553-7976
Cell phone: (0054-9-11) 6289-8123
E-mail: [email protected]
El 11/02/2016 a las 11:46, Jon Awbrey escribió:
Adrian, List,
I would start with the three normative sciences of aesthetics, ethics,
and logic.
When semiotics becomes normative it falls within logic, so I would
worry whether
pure aesthetics has much to do with objective or even interpretive
meaning, that is
to say, semantics or pragmatics. Just a worry, I will have to think
on it a while.
From where I see it, concerned primarily with applications to
scientific inquiry and
empirical data, the discussion of Peirce's categories over the last 20
years or so has
undergone such debasement that it now borders on a style of
philosophical astrology.
Regards,
Jon
On 2/9/2016 11:33 AM, Adrian Ivakhiv wrote:
Dear all:
I'm struggling with a way of tying Peirce's categories down to the 3
main elements by which we can make sense of art
works: their materiality, our experience of them, and their meanings.
Putting it that way suggests one ordering, but a
deeper thinking through of the process (and nonlinear) nature of the
categories suggests another. I'm interested in
gauging what Peircians may think. I'd appreciate any comments
directly on the web site below:
http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/2016/02/09/rethinking-the-3-categories/
Thanks!
Rethinking the 3 categories
February 9, 2016 byAdrian J Ivakhiv
<http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/author/aivakhiv/>
I've been struggling with how my triadic framework for interpreting
art works relates to C. S. Peirce's categories
<http://www.textlog.de/4254.html>.
When I first developed my triadism (fleshed out
<http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/2014/12/29/emis-cinematic-materialism-a-response-to-reviews/>in/Ecologies
of the Moving
Image <http://www.wlupress.wlu.ca/Catalog/ivakhiv.shtml>/) into the
non-Peircian terms of materiality, experience, and
representation
<http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/2014/03/08/rethinking-the-three-ecologies/>
--- which I did in the context
of teaching a course on the environmental arts --- I loosely
considered the first of these to be analogous to Peircian
firstness, the second to secondness, and the third to thirdness.
The point, in my teaching, was not to adhere strictly to Peirce,
since my students weren't studying him, but just to
have a handy triadic formula that would be useful for making sense of
the eco-arts in ways that get beyond the customary
overemphasis on/representation/in favor of/experience/(including
affect) and/materiality/. Materiality deals with the
stuff that's just there (one element); experience involves a second
--- the artist, the reader or viewer, et al. (two);
and representation makes sense and meaning of the stuff and its
shapers and perceivers in real-world contexts (three);
thus Peirce's categories loosely fit. Whether students got the Peirce
or not, they could follow that.
But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that this way of
ordering the three may be un-Peircian. Or at least
that there was a second way of connecting it to Peirce that was
sufficiently different from the first and had important
consequences.
Let me break it down here.
* To continue reading, go to *
http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/2016/02/09/rethinking-the-3-categories*/*
______________________________________________________________________________
Adrian J. Ivakhiv
Professor of Environmental Studies/Environmental Thought & Culture
Rubenstein School of Environment & Natural Resources
University of Vermont, Burlington VT 05405 U.S.A.
Tel 802.656.0180 Fax 802.656.8015 Email: [email protected]
http://vermont.academia.edu/AdrianIvakhiv
http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv
http://www.uvm.edu/~aivakhiv
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
