[lit-ideas] To what extent must we appreciate a work of art 'on its own terms'?

In a message dated 2/27/2009 3:44:19 P.M.  Eastern Standard Time, 
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
There are many  senses and POVS from which a work of art cannot set its own 
standard (including  the almost logical one that,if it could, there would be no 
independent standards  - everything would achieve the standard it set itself, 
in a trivial  sense).
2. There may nevertheless be a sense in which we should try to  appreciate a 
WOArt on its own terms.

----  

Ad (1),
 
I found a book on _conceptual art_ useful. This book contained documents by  
artists themselves. One by Joseph Kosuth (and this was written in the 1960s)  
cited from Ayer's Language, Truth and Logic -- account of 'analytic'. 
 
Kosuth wanted to say, happily, that
 
       'x is a work of art'
 
_is_ analytic.

Oddly, he did not pursue Ayer's treatment of  'emotivism' here.
 
A few points:
 
I did meet Keith Arnatt in Buenos Aires. To me his claim to fame was, and  
still is,
his fabulous, "I am a real artist". We discussed it. 
 
When it comes to aesthetics, however, I have now undergone the Sibleian  phase
that I had discussed with R. Paul on this list.
 
Sibley wants to say that 'aesthetic' is really a second-order  predicate,
and it has to do with,
 
       "My, I love the touch of your  fingers..."
 
      "the touch of your lips" (to use Noble's  song title)
 
etc.
 
I.e. there are sensational predicates (or predicates of sensation) such as  
'warm', 'cool', etc.
Then there are _other_ predicates, 'ugly', 'cool' (in this different  
'usage'), etc.
 
These predicates are 'aesthetic' -- they belong to _sensation_  
(etymologically in Greek and Latin). 

Then there's the question of pleasure (loopy, hedone). Some of these  
sensations provoke pleasure in us. They are "pleasurable sensations". I claim  
that 
art can be defined in that way.
 
Others (Geary) disagree. He says that art should _provoke_. (as in 'provoke  
to vomit').
 
Back to "Phil Enns" (I hope you are tired by now, narcissistically, that  you 
are not credited with your views):

>There are many senses and POVS  from
> which a work of art can not set its 
>own standard (including the almost logical one that,
>if it could, 
>there would be no independent standards 
>- everything would achieve the standard it set 
>itself, in a trivial sense)."
 
Trivial? That's philosophical! And it's not a sense -- it's "in a trivial  
_WAY_". If people stopped abusing the word 'sense', this would be, in a sense, 
a 
 different world.
 
I prefer your blatantly Popperian "POV" perspectivism.
 
As for your conditional,
 
         'if it could...'
 
which you think, smartly, you can pose as a _reductio ad absurdum_, it's  
wrong.
 
"independent" has nothing to do with it. I hope you do _not_ read "The  
Independent".
 
In the nontrivial sense (or scenario) I describe we have all these  
considerations:
 
---- first, do not moralise. One can wipe his own with a piece of  art.
 
--- Does this provoke pleasure in me?  (  )
 
--- Is the intention of the 'artist' to produce something that will enhance  
my pleasurable sensations? (In Japan, "is she a 'geisha'?").
 
--- Is upskirting pleasurable?
 
--- Is upskirting motivated by the provocativeness (Geary's word) of
the way some Daoist masters wear theirs?
 
Cheers,
 
JL



**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: