Dear Cheryl
I said in full: "I believe that aesthetics are highly personal and so is
art. Otherwise, how could we have artists who ignore established
institutions of art - or rather counter them with their own institutions ie.
Warhol, Pollock, Laurie Anderson, etc. Thank whatever that we each have our
own aesthetic emotional response to any kind of object!"
Perhaps it would make things less dire for you if I qualified my last
sentence slightly by saying "we each have our own secondary level aesthetic
emotional response to the kinds of objects that stimulate such responses in
us." My point here is that our intentions, circumstances and reflections are
unique to us as individuals, even though we may come to share certain
preferences and experiences with others. You seem to be committed to some
absolute Platonic view of aesthetics that I clearly do not share.
Your idea and Langer's that an aesthetic response introduces "something that
is not known before" should be rephrased it seems to me as: introduces
something that is not known in the same way before. It is precisely our
effort to interpret something that we are stimulated by that calls on prior
feelings and knowledge to enable us to experience aesthetic pleasure - pain.
Aesthetic pleasure can be revisited with the same object - it therefore is
not something that always has a novel stimulus. A familiar response may be
rewakened.
Best,
Chuck
On 6/4/04 2:59 AM, "cheryl akner-koler" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Dear Chuck and all
>
> Based on what we have been discussing the past few days about basic level
> aesthetics then I can not understand that you ended your comment with such
> an contradictory conclusion.
>
>> that we each have our own aesthetic emotional response to any kind of object!
>
> I for one can not accept such a general statement (other wise my whole role
> in research and teaching would be futile.) However I do support the idea
> that within the area of aesthetics embedded in the creative process we
> should try to bring up our own aesthetical emotions which are not easily
> accessed.
>
> Susann Langer states that art like science is to acquaint the beholder with
> something he has not known before. Then it follows that the art should
> provoke something within in us which brings up feelings that have not
> confronted before. This level of aesthetics is closer to the development of
> gestalt and what Langer calls significant form.
>
> We could continue on this line and leave basic level aesthetics for now
> since this also has to do with mathematical "cry".
>
> Take care
>
> Cheryl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Langer, Susanne. Feeling and form. Charles Scribner´s sons New York 1953
>
|