Dear Ranjan

Ranjan wrote:
>So where does the basic level (purely biological?) end and the cultural
>and tutored levels (semantic and semiotic culturally mediated?) begin?

I agree I have difficulty discerning  the basic level aesthetics from
semantic and semiotic in practice, however in theory it serves an important
role. Some how we tend to spend all our time on the high level-aesthetics (
if we can accept this term) like semantics and semiotics, value based,
branding etc. and forget that the basic level aesthetics have not evolved
(theoretically) since Wertheimer, Bauhaus and the Constructivist. Hopefully
we do not need a second Russian cultural revolution to bring our attention
back to basic-level.

>(purely biological?)

In an earlier discussion with Chuck we discussed intentionality in terms of
gestalt. Chuck wrote: "I believe that primary emotions are basic level and
have intentionality."  Perhaps it is good to add that aspect of
intentionally when the concept- basic level aesthetics is used because the
word aesthetics (in a process- aesthetical theory)  implies judgment that
can guide the creative performance. As you mentioned in your post.


The problem here is we have chosen a medium that has tied our hands. WE can
not achieve the quality of communication here as we do in teaching, because
we cannt show each other what we mean by basic level- aesthetics. If we used
materials, space, turntables, tools etc and our bodies to explain what we
mean we relax and enjoy more of our differences.

>However in my view our cognitive abilities and aesthetic sensibilities
>are dictated by our past experiences, learning, and our cultural
>upbringing and our maturation within a given culture through education
>in etiquette and in reflection and practice.

I would change the word "dictated by our past..." to "supported or
contextualize by our past" in order to allow for greater degrees of freedom
and to not discriminate against dis-functional cultural upbringing.


Take care

Cheryl