An essay from the NY Times on the aesthetics of ugliness:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/fashion/30ugly.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Thursday, October 30, 2008
(AP) Hume's Viciousness
Let's take a closer look at David Hume's proposed solution to the antinomous depiction of art as open to "critical" (that is, objective) judgments that are irreducibly subjective in origin. Hoping ultimately to reconcile a multiplicity of human "sentiments," he invokes (what he supposes are) instances of universal agreement from which to generate principles of artistic excellence. But on what basis does Hume assume that mere (inter-subjective) agreement is sufficient to generate an objective (that is, trans-subjective) standard? Is he simply claiming that "the best art" always conforms to standards implicit in our best artistic products and processes? If so, Hume is open to the charge of vicious -- or at least ineffectual -- circularity.
As T. Gracyk writes:
Whatever the standard, Hume's essay poses the problem of an apparent circularity in argumentation. A limited number of works are used to identify the best critics (leading, in turn, to the list of the qualities of such critics), but those works attain the status of masterpieces only through the judgment of such critics. So Hume either defines good critics in terms of good art, or good art in terms of good critics. (Is Homer's greatness demonstrated by the fact that true critics say so, or is their status as good critics to be demonstrated by the fact that they agree on Homer's merits?)
It may be, as Hume claims, that we face "questions of fact" in asking whether someone possesses the characteristics he attributes to true critics, or whether a specific work has appealed to such critics across cultures and the ages. Either way, how has he shown that "established" beauties provide the "finest" pleasure? Why are they superior to the "vulgar," transitory entertainments Hume dismisses? The features of the true critic are often read as Hume's way out of this trap. But Hume seems to have predetermined that only someone with wealth, education and leisure will ever possess good taste. The only answer, in the end, is the verdict of our common human nature: "the sentiments of all mankind are agreed" that such critics are superior.
As T. Gracyk writes:
Whatever the standard, Hume's essay poses the problem of an apparent circularity in argumentation. A limited number of works are used to identify the best critics (leading, in turn, to the list of the qualities of such critics), but those works attain the status of masterpieces only through the judgment of such critics. So Hume either defines good critics in terms of good art, or good art in terms of good critics. (Is Homer's greatness demonstrated by the fact that true critics say so, or is their status as good critics to be demonstrated by the fact that they agree on Homer's merits?)
It may be, as Hume claims, that we face "questions of fact" in asking whether someone possesses the characteristics he attributes to true critics, or whether a specific work has appealed to such critics across cultures and the ages. Either way, how has he shown that "established" beauties provide the "finest" pleasure? Why are they superior to the "vulgar," transitory entertainments Hume dismisses? The features of the true critic are often read as Hume's way out of this trap. But Hume seems to have predetermined that only someone with wealth, education and leisure will ever possess good taste. The only answer, in the end, is the verdict of our common human nature: "the sentiments of all mankind are agreed" that such critics are superior.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
(NHN) Marx, King, Nonviolence
Commentary attempting to link Marx's view of (systemic, at times justified) violence to King's pacifism.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
(NHN) Extraterrestrial Commentary on 'Spreading the Wealth Around'
"I say, Glorp, these earth-creatures and their leaders seem curiously driven to defend an obscenely inequitable distribution of earth-goods.”
“Quite right, Zplork.”“Is it true that a mere 1% of the population possesses more than 50% of all the wealth on the planet?"
”That is indeed the case, my friend. 30 Earth-years ago, when I was but a gleam in Glorp Sr.’s compound eye, the gap between the richest 20% of the population and the rest stood at 30-to-1; now it's 74-to-1. And over the same period, while the (real) income of the bottom 90% of the U.S.A. nation-state fell by 7%, the income of the top 1/100 of 1% of the people of that country rose by nearly 600%."
"Well, that must surely infuriate the average denizen of the U.S.A. nation-state!"
"Oddly enough, these particular earthlings are happier than most to defend radical inequalities in wealth, power, and income. While they suffer from the highest rate of inequality among similarly developed nation-states, they do comparatively little about it; and a recent terrestrial survey suggests that its citizens are mostly unconcerned about the plight of those least advantaged by the current inequalities.”
“That is a disturbing bit of news, Glorp. But I suppose we shouldn't expect too much from a creature sporting such a tiny brain and but two lower limbs.”
”Let’s not confuse aesthetics with science, Zplork. While no doubt physically repulsive, animal ethologists back on Mars have concluded that humans are sufficiently sentient for us to expect that they can, at least in principle, consistently adopt the moral point of view."
"Well, perhaps some of them can. Let’s not forget that this one nation-state spends nearly as much as all of the others combined preparing for war.”
“That is indeed a sign of a serious cognitive and moral deficiency, my translucent green friend…"
-----
Update:
The discussion continues.
Here is a new book and interactive site explaining "what we could have done" with the
$1, 000, 000, 000, 000 so far spent occupying Iraq.
“Quite right, Zplork.”“Is it true that a mere 1% of the population possesses more than 50% of all the wealth on the planet?"
”That is indeed the case, my friend. 30 Earth-years ago, when I was but a gleam in Glorp Sr.’s compound eye, the gap between the richest 20% of the population and the rest stood at 30-to-1; now it's 74-to-1. And over the same period, while the (real) income of the bottom 90% of the U.S.A. nation-state fell by 7%, the income of the top 1/100 of 1% of the people of that country rose by nearly 600%."
"Well, that must surely infuriate the average denizen of the U.S.A. nation-state!"
"Oddly enough, these particular earthlings are happier than most to defend radical inequalities in wealth, power, and income. While they suffer from the highest rate of inequality among similarly developed nation-states, they do comparatively little about it; and a recent terrestrial survey suggests that its citizens are mostly unconcerned about the plight of those least advantaged by the current inequalities.”
“That is a disturbing bit of news, Glorp. But I suppose we shouldn't expect too much from a creature sporting such a tiny brain and but two lower limbs.”
”Let’s not confuse aesthetics with science, Zplork. While no doubt physically repulsive, animal ethologists back on Mars have concluded that humans are sufficiently sentient for us to expect that they can, at least in principle, consistently adopt the moral point of view."
"Well, perhaps some of them can. Let’s not forget that this one nation-state spends nearly as much as all of the others combined preparing for war.”
“That is indeed a sign of a serious cognitive and moral deficiency, my translucent green friend…"
-----
Update:
The discussion continues.
Here is a new book and interactive site explaining "what we could have done" with the
$1, 000, 000, 000, 000 so far spent occupying Iraq.
(EE) Teaching the "Science of Death"
A recent essay from environmental educator John Borowski:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/20-5
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/20-5
(AP) Hume's Antinomy
Some background on Hume's (and Kant's) antinomous aesthetic:
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20of%20art/hume_and_kant.htm
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20of%20art/hume_and_kant.htm
Thursday, October 16, 2008
(AP) Definability and Openness
Morris Weitz claims that art is an indefinable-because-open concept. I tentatively suggested yesterday that he conflates indefinability and openness, overlooking in the process the possibility of a definable-yet-open conception of art.
Weitz -- or perhaps Wartenberg -- apparently assumes that a satisfactory definition of art must be an intensional one (a specification of the necessary and jointly sufficient conditions required of each member of the set under consideration). But Weitz's preferred extensional (in this case, ostensive) definition of art is still, obviously enough, a definition. Even so, I remain hopeful that we might construct a satisfactory -- however inclusive and broad -- intensional definition of art.
See Jeff Strayer's handout for a brief summary of the relations between necessary and sufficient conditions and any attempt to define art.
Weitz -- or perhaps Wartenberg -- apparently assumes that a satisfactory definition of art must be an intensional one (a specification of the necessary and jointly sufficient conditions required of each member of the set under consideration). But Weitz's preferred extensional (in this case, ostensive) definition of art is still, obviously enough, a definition. Even so, I remain hopeful that we might construct a satisfactory -- however inclusive and broad -- intensional definition of art.
See Jeff Strayer's handout for a brief summary of the relations between necessary and sufficient conditions and any attempt to define art.
(NHN) Economics, Reality, Marx, etc.
A recent essay from Common Dreams taking up several issues related to Pojman's chapter 10. (Take a look at the many comments from readers as well.)
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/15-2
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/15-2
Friday, October 10, 2008
(NHN) The Nature of Palin
A thoughtful analysis of Palin's mud-slinging ways. An excerpt:
Thus, behind the candied incandescence of the Palin phenomena, behind the shoutouts to Joe Six Pack, and third graders at the Gladys Wood Elementary School, behind the darn right's and the coy winks is perhaps something scarier -- a rank appeal to our baser instincts at a time when nationwide fear can be manipulated to overrule basic common sense and decency.
----
Update: A report from the Alaska legislature today charges Palin with abuse of executive power:
“Such impermissible and repeated contacts,” the report states, “create conflicts of interests for subordinate employees who must choose to either please a superior or run the risk of facing that superior’s displeasure and the possible consequences of that displeasure.” The report concludes that the action was a violation of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.
Thus, behind the candied incandescence of the Palin phenomena, behind the shoutouts to Joe Six Pack, and third graders at the Gladys Wood Elementary School, behind the darn right's and the coy winks is perhaps something scarier -- a rank appeal to our baser instincts at a time when nationwide fear can be manipulated to overrule basic common sense and decency.
----
Update: A report from the Alaska legislature today charges Palin with abuse of executive power:
“Such impermissible and repeated contacts,” the report states, “create conflicts of interests for subordinate employees who must choose to either please a superior or run the risk of facing that superior’s displeasure and the possible consequences of that displeasure.” The report concludes that the action was a violation of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.
(A&P) On Defining Art (Pace Weitz)
One brief, "phenomenological" account of the impossibility of defining art:
http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Berleant%20Def
http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Berleant%20Def
(A&P) On Defining Art (Contra Weitz)
Kenneth Lansing argues, against Weitz in particular, that we can and must define art. An excerpt:
If art educators teach anything at all, they teach composition, artistic procedures or techniques, and skill building. But how can they justify the teaching of composition or design if there is no specific compositional characteristic that a work of art must possess? How can they justify efforts to develop skill in the handling of the tools and materials of art if such skill does not need to be reflected in works of art? Who is to say what students must know and be able to do in art if the production of art objects doesn't require any particular knowledge or ability?
Consequently, I am compelled to ask why someone doesn't entertain the idea that we may have assigned the term "work of art" unjustifiably to certain things in the past. Or is it "okay" to have thrown that term around carelessly only to discover, years later, that we can't define the nature of its referents because they don't have anything in common?I am also compelled to ask how evaluation in art can be carried out in any logical fashion if we don't know what the subject is or what it requires. To get an idea of how important such a problem is, try applying it to a different discipline. Consider, for example, the fix that teachers of aeronautical engineering would be in if they didn't know what an airplane was.
If art educators teach anything at all, they teach composition, artistic procedures or techniques, and skill building. But how can they justify the teaching of composition or design if there is no specific compositional characteristic that a work of art must possess? How can they justify efforts to develop skill in the handling of the tools and materials of art if such skill does not need to be reflected in works of art? Who is to say what students must know and be able to do in art if the production of art objects doesn't require any particular knowledge or ability?
Consequently, I am compelled to ask why someone doesn't entertain the idea that we may have assigned the term "work of art" unjustifiably to certain things in the past. Or is it "okay" to have thrown that term around carelessly only to discover, years later, that we can't define the nature of its referents because they don't have anything in common?I am also compelled to ask how evaluation in art can be carried out in any logical fashion if we don't know what the subject is or what it requires. To get an idea of how important such a problem is, try applying it to a different discipline. Consider, for example, the fix that teachers of aeronautical engineering would be in if they didn't know what an airplane was.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
(A&P) Clive Bell's (Genuine) Elitism
Here's a review of The Intellectuals and the Masses which contains a brief poke at Clive Bell's inflated regard for his own tastes:
http://www.mantex.co.uk/reviews/carey_2.htm
http://www.mantex.co.uk/reviews/carey_2.htm
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)