Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (40487)	6/14/1999 3:52:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Do I disagree with the statement that "if there is a truth [in Art] it is entirely subjective"? Depends, as our President would say. Depends on how you define "subjective" (and "objective"), and on what "entirely" means. Depends on whether you are experiencing the Art in question as a creator, as an isolated contemplator, or as a group participant. Depends on etc. & etc. I unfortunately do not have the time right now to give your post either the attention or the response it merits (I still have guests here). And when I do have time to respond, I think it would probably be best to do so via PM; much as I enjoy wrangling over words, I suspect it bores most of the other threadsters here. <g> I do want to dispel one misconception publicly, however, and that is that I consider Chuzz's refusal to adopt my approach " evidence that he is less a lover and admirer and appreciator, even worshipper, of art than are you." Quite the contrary! I would not have started "picking on" Chuzz in the first place, if I had not believed that he was at least as much, if not more than "a lover and admirer, and appreciator, even worshipper of Art" than I. But I felt he was, so to speak, doing himself violence by denying full validity to his own God! And doing so because his God could not be proved to exist "objectively"! I wanted to tell him, hey, it's okay to worship! <g> Go back to the Great Books discussion, if you want to see where my own misconception (if it is such) originated... Joan

To: E who wrote (40487)	6/14/1999 5:00:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Joan, do you disagree with Chuzz's statement that "if there is a truth [in Art] it is entirely subjective? It seems to me to be so clearly true that it's almost tautological. Do you really mean "a" truth, or would "any" truth be more correct? Seems to me that there is at least some objective truth in art if you define objective to mean something which is accepted by the large majority of observers and doesn't depend on personal interaction with the object of attention. For example, I think there are certain objective truths in some of Shakespeare's plays. I think there is an objective truth in saying that a rectangle based on the Golden Mean is more satisfying to the human senses than some other rectangles. I think there is an objective truth that the York Minster Cathedral inspires a sense of awe, no matter what religion (or no religion) you profess. I think there is objective truth in saying that certain chords in music (major fifth, for example) resonate more positively in our ears than other, more dissonent, chords. Some (perhaps most) musical appreciation is cultural, but some is not. There are certain primitive funeral chants that are universally recognized as representing grief and suffering. I consider these objective truths. Perhaps you don't.