Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 23:29:48 +0100
From: Colin Wight <Colin.Wight-AT-aber.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Reply to Colin


Hi Carrol,

On your point about taste, this seems wildly off the mark. Of course it is
an aesthetic matter whether you like red wine or white, what else is it?
Unless of course you are presupposing some high fuluted (sp) idea of
aesthetics. Anyway, if taste (and evaluations and the beautifil) are  is
bad metaphors for aesthetics it is time to cough: just what else are we
gong to use.

Also, I've never been too enamoured with the attempt to reduce the way we
use words now to their moment of genesis, as if the march of history didn't
make any difference. the etymology of a word only tells us the etymology of
a word, not how we use it now (although I don't rule out an enlightening
function to such inquiries). I also fail to see where this gets us? Anyway
that said, I'm unsure what your point is? that is, I can't figure out
whether your argument supports Tobin/Michael's position or mine - or maybe
sets up a new one.

 Does anyone know either in fact or legend of any case
>in which judgment (or whatever) was in the least involved in human
>responses to the smells of shit, skunks and decayed meat (the same
>chemical is involved in each)? 

Try giving a Westerner the Durain (an exotic fruit in Asia), its fetid and
garlicky smell generally put them off and the eating of such fruit led
certain westerners to characterise certain Asian peoples as sub-human.
Still does actually, try watching the face of a well bred English person as
they are offered uncokked but warm Monkey Brains for dinner. Also, without
getting too personal, you might want to check out the vast spectrum of
sexual prcatices in offer in the world. I'm not sure what your argument is
here, are you positing a universal human reaction to these substances?

 
>I really think discussion of "aesthetic" responses should keep food, wine,
>etc. out of it.


Why? are you saying food and good wine aren't artistic? Aren't aesthetic?
Isn't wine beautiful. That said, i'm perfectly happy to keep the discussion
on the terrain of whatever.

On the snuff movies point it was Tobin that raised it not me, and whether
or not they are real or not the issue remains the same. 

But I suppose I am missing your point here, how does the real killing of
actors affect our aesthetic jugdement? Haven't you ever heard of an
honourable death? Wasn't Bobby Sands death in a sense beautiful to some?
Tragic to others? A disgrace to some? And a bloody inconvience to yet
others? To me it was wrong. It was unnecessary. It was avoidable? And it
was a real death? But I am loath to say it wasn't beautiful.


Could you please elaborate on what your comments say about the debate, I'm
not too good at reading betwen the lines? What i mean is if you are
rejecting the taste metaphor (which nowadays has very little to do with
taste as in food or drink), just what do you propose instead. Michael tells
me the aesthetic isn't only, even primarily, to do with evaluation, Tobin
says it is and it isn't (not in a contradictory manner, but in a sense to
avoid either/or choices), you say it's not about taste. I could have
totally misunderstood, but the chickens are coming home to roost and if
aesthestics isn't about evaluation and taste what is it?

Thanks,






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