Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 22:28:58 +0100
From: Colin Wight <Colin.Wight-AT-aber.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Aesthetics


Hi Louis,


>Rejecting my aspect 1 is not an option because it does not involve a 
>subjective element.  

But that is precisely why i am rejeting it as being aesthetic.

To reject it you would have to deny, for 
>example, the existence of specific key relationships in a work by Mozart.  

I don't deny it's existence only that it has aesthetic worth.


>
>So our disagreement must come down to whether the objective form of a thing 
>is relevant to its aesthetic appreciation.  It baffles me how anyone could 
>dispute such a thing.  I'm not saying that knowledge of form automatically
>produces appreciation, merely that it's a key ingredient.

In which case why do people not deive the same aesthetic experience form
the same things?


You could have cited Louis Armstrong, Duke
>Ellington, King Oliver, Thelonius Monk and numerous others as examples of
>mass music, and no one would complain about dilution of standards.  But
>that buffoon Pavarotti? (And, no question, he was great in his day, 20-30
>years ago.)


But again, this imply serves to make my point. On your objectivist reading
of the aesthetic I should, through education, be able to see the beauty of
these. I hate jazz, despite knowing an awful lot about its structure (can't
stand all those diminshed 9th myself).

But hey, you get of on it. That's fine. 

>
>I am of course sorry to learn that England is drowning in High Art and that
>football is on the wane.  Must be the decline of Empire. :)

No, football is not on the wane, quite the contrary, it is simply not art,
or even aesthetic. Fools what do they know.

Thanks,




     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---