From: IN%"[email protected]" "Art Criticism Discussion Forum" 11-JAN-199
3
11:57:23.35
To: Howard Lawrence <[email protected]>
CC:
Subj: beauty is pleasure
Message-id: <[email protected]>
Received: from JNET-DAEMON by PSUARCH.Bitnet; Mon, 11 Jan 93 11:56 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 2527 for HRL@PSUARCH; Mon,
11 Jan 93 11:56 EDT
Received: from PSUVM.BITNET by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP
id 5482; Mon, 11 Jan 93 11:50:51 EST
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 11:46:09 EST
From: MM <mbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: beauty is pleasure
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <[email protected]>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
X-To: [email protected]
Pleasure being as diffuse a term as it is includes of course sexual
pleasure which would mean sculptor would affirm that only heterosexual art
can be beautiful--"for him" if he grants complete relativity to the matter.
And if he generalizes--absurdity results. The five or ten pages of Kant I'vd
read in Critique of Judgment downplay the interest of the senses because they
are so fickle. A work may be difficult and give little, if any, physical
exhilaration, and be superior to a work which is easier, and ever so pleasing
to the senses, giving pleasure. A swim in a blue lake is pleasure.
I do agree, however, that what I locate in myself as the aesthetic
experience is inextricable from an accompanying, or resulting, exultance or
exhilaration--but for me this has nothing to do with any conventional idea
of the beautiful, or pleasure in a personal sense. I mean it wouldn't depend
on whether what I was viewing catered to my sexual orientation, my economic
class, etc.
Michael McColl
3
11:57:23.35
To: Howard Lawrence <[email protected]>
CC:
Subj: beauty is pleasure
Message-id: <[email protected]>
Received: from JNET-DAEMON by PSUARCH.Bitnet; Mon, 11 Jan 93 11:56 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 2527 for HRL@PSUARCH; Mon,
11 Jan 93 11:56 EDT
Received: from PSUVM.BITNET by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (Mailer R2.10 ptf000) with BSMTP
id 5482; Mon, 11 Jan 93 11:50:51 EST
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 11:46:09 EST
From: MM <mbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: beauty is pleasure
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <[email protected]>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
X-To: [email protected]
Pleasure being as diffuse a term as it is includes of course sexual
pleasure which would mean sculptor would affirm that only heterosexual art
can be beautiful--"for him" if he grants complete relativity to the matter.
And if he generalizes--absurdity results. The five or ten pages of Kant I'vd
read in Critique of Judgment downplay the interest of the senses because they
are so fickle. A work may be difficult and give little, if any, physical
exhilaration, and be superior to a work which is easier, and ever so pleasing
to the senses, giving pleasure. A swim in a blue lake is pleasure.
I do agree, however, that what I locate in myself as the aesthetic
experience is inextricable from an accompanying, or resulting, exultance or
exhilaration--but for me this has nothing to do with any conventional idea
of the beautiful, or pleasure in a personal sense. I mean it wouldn't depend
on whether what I was viewing catered to my sexual orientation, my economic
class, etc.
Michael McColl