Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP (02/13/87)
Really-From: Robert Stanzel <apollo!rps> IED struggles with Philosophy 101: >... Although it is not possible to set up a standard of >aesthetic value with which all can agree, it is certainly >possible to DESCRIBE and analyse specific aesthetic characteristics. >YOU may "see" as much complexity in Eno's lyrics as you do >in Kate's, but that does not change the fact that Kate's >generally possess a considerably higher degree of multivalence, >both structural and thematic. I began to see convergence in this paragraph: sure, we can describe and analyze. But then you blow it in the last sentence -- one can't usefully compare aesthetics. In the quote, your first phrase contradicts your last. >If you could possibly have cited an example to refute this, no doubt >you would have by now. However, here's another chance for you -- >PROVE IED wrong! But don't just SAY he's wrong. You've missed the point again: there can be no proof. Note that I made no specific references to artists in my last note, but you've chosen to reintroduce specific mention of Eno, egging on another futile combative debate. Sorry. My pick for you is "draw indecisive mark", for obvious reasons. Rob ("bolster zen art") -------
Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP (02/16/87)
Really-From: rutgers!uwvax!astroatc!gtaylor (Ou sont les neiges d'antan?) It occurs to me that if you look at andrew's little quoted thingie here and then check out r. stanzel's followup (to wit): >>... Although it is not possible to set up a standard of >>aesthetic value with which all can agree, it is certainly >>possible to DESCRIBE and analyse specific aesthetic characteristics. >>YOU may "see" as much complexity in Eno's lyrics as you do >>in Kate's, but that does not change the fact that Kate's >>generally possess a considerably higher degree of multivalence, >>both structural and thematic. > >I began to see convergence in this paragraph: sure, we can describe and >analyze. But then you blow it in the last sentence -- one can't usefully >compare aesthetics. In the quote, your first phrase contradicts your last. you wind up with a kind of argument we've seen before. andrew is arguing a slightly modified Romantic/empiricist position (looking at his earlier musings on Beethoven, I think that he even out-Romantics Doug. We should look at that posting again). Y'know..."beauty is resident in an object, the result of the genius of person X. said beauty can be described using the following criteria without resorting to "bias" in any form-merely the elucidations of description...." Let's be fair, though-andrew *has* admitted that concensus may play a part in the assignation of *quality* to work in the Beethoven posting. "bolster zen art"'s (great anagram) reply is also a pretty standard post-C.S. Pierce, 20th century view of the problems of descriptive language (wherein "objective" language functions like light-perturbing the thing one tries to examine". Please note that I'm just being cute with the analogy. Trying to expand it to argue a critical position wrt language is a minefield. -- A man walks down a street/it's a street in a strange world/maybe it's the third world/maybe it's his first time around/doesn't speak the language/ he holds no currency/he is a foreign man/he is surrounded by the sound/ ///////////Gregory Taylor/Astronautics/{wherever}!uwvax!astroatc!gtaylor