Re: aesthetic value (was: Thanks!)

[S Mure <panic@xxxxxxxxxx>]

In article <Pine.GSO.4.10.9906142130410.26288-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
j laari <jlaari@xxxxxxxxx> writes
>Now,
>what are intrinsic aesthetic properties of the work of art, are
>obviously partly due to the culture shared by the artist and the
>audience? Artist, when he isn't an extremist avantgardist, must rely
>on the same culture with the audience. Otherwise he would isolate
>himself from the audience (well there are lots of examples of this?).

If we live in a society where we are utterly estranged from eachother,
where the audience is held together by a simulation of sociality
provided by a piece of music, surely there is no *true* common
understanding which would allow communication? The artist would be just
another trickster, self-advertiser, participating in a lie.
As you suggest *all* art, all music, including the 'most extreme
avantgardist' is social to the core. It requires some socially accepted
set of conventions to make it 'art'. So the reception of the music would
require a kind of sycophancy, a creation of an island of people who have
decided to be 'like-minded' in their obedience to the rules of the form
of the music and whose sense of identity partly depends on it. Thus the
formation of sub-cultures around each form of 'popular' music, which
nowadays pretty much includes 'classical' music.
Where is the possibility of expression?

>Let's suppose he avoids this and gets understood. That means the
>intrinsic properties of his work of art are selected, basically
>because of shared cultural understanding? In other words,
>concentration on properties of the work of art has led us into shared
>culture. Ideological/discoursive "factor". But hey, wouldn't that make
>the whole aesthetic enterprise circular?

Yes, it does.
--
Simon Smith