 |
 |
sometimes epistemology helps clarifying issues: according to dictionaries: aesthetics is a theory of beauty and taste. this theory is advanced in philosophy (perhaps now also in psychology and cultural studies). as a theory, it occurs in language (in the verbal interactions between people). chuck could be right in saying that everyone CAN have his or her own aesthetics. but not everyone has studied philosophy (or psychology or cultural studies) and frankly, i very much doubt that everyone is able to theorize his or her own sense of beauty, taste, and emotional response to things. if it were so, philosophers would have nothing to theorize and would have to leave it to empirical researchers to tabulate the different aesthetics in a population of people. i would say that everyone RESPONDS differently to their environment depending on their history of experiences, emotional situation, and intentions to act. when people start talking about their responses, they use conventional words, metaphors, and other linguistic devices to explain if not construct what beauty is. these explanations may not be a formalized aesthetics, but often make use of words that have shared social histories, including in philosophical discourse. would you be willing to look for basic level aesthetics in ordinary talk? then i would be with you in exploring that. i think it would be useful to keep the distinction between how people explain themselves to each other and in relation to what they do with things (on various levels: from ordinary talk to well articulated philosophical discourse) and the bodily reactions they experience when engaging with the things of their environment. cheryl sounds right when she points to langer's evocative approach to science (and aesthetics). if it is to say something new, it becomes a design problem, a problem of using language, or a communication problem, only marginally an accurate account of visceral reactions. klaus krippendorff gregory bateson term professor for cybernetics, language, and culture the annenberg school for communication university of pennsylvania 3620 walnut street philadelphia, pa 19104.6220 phone: 215.898.7051 (O); 215.545.9356 (H) fax: 215.898.2024 (O); 215.545.9357 (H) usa -----Original Message----- From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Charles Burnette User Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 9:19 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Basic level aesthetics and density 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 >