Hi Tim - it doesn't sound like nonsense to me, but then, my whole sense of
aesthetic is deeply influenced from years watching and sometimes making
theatre, which is a dialectic, temporal and dynamic art. It is also a place
where the subjective experience becomes (ideally) commonly shared ("dreaming
in public"). Or as close as is possible... Fwiw, in terms of judgement of
writing or any other art, I think an informed and conscious subjective taste
is the best any of us have to play with. I'm not sure, tho, that texts or
tastes can be assumed to have the "same source" - surely not - I'd say
rather they spring from perhaps some common sources (textual and
experiential) and also wildly different ones. Perhaps it's this unitary
assumption that causes me unease...cultural experience is after all
extremely heterogenous - I don't expect that even should you or I have some
reading in common, that our lives - surely at least as much a shaping
experience of taste - would have much in common at all.
Best
A
On 28/8/05 8:53 PM, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I am not disputing the existence of what we call taste, subjective judgement
> or whatever; I am disputing their use, as convenient excuses for example, and
> the simplistic cover-all-possibilities way in which they are brought into
> arguments about literature when other avenues become too difficult. I am
> especially talking about people who act, indeed, as if there actually were, as
> you say, 'a transcendent set of universal and objective qualities' but then
> coolly flip the coin over when the occasion demands. It seems that for such
> people it is one or the other, with nothing in-between, and in my opinion that
> way of thinking gives no room for consideration of the complex dynamic between
> writing reading and text that comes into play when judgements of texts are
> openly expressed. Neither texts nor tastes are isolated islands, they partake
> in a dialogue, they have a coexistence, they share the same source. Therefore
> although notions of good and bad are not static, neither are they entirely
> relative because their meaningful opposition emanates from the same pool as
> text and taste. This is why I am being critical of those who 'hide' in taste,
> because the concept of taste on its own is meaningless
>
> Forgive me if this sounds like nonsense Alison - it's a hard one.
Alison Croggon
Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au
Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
|