[MD] The difference between a Monet and a finger painting

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Well, John:

I certainly agree we can rationalize our aesthetic judgements (like Kant) 
and indeed we try to do so to persuade others of our lofty sophistication 
and elite status. But like reality itself, art is first and foremost an 
immediate experience whose purpose is, as Walter Pater said: " . . .  to 
give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they pass, and 
simply for those moments' sake."

Reason need not apply.

Platt
   

On 19 Jan 2010 at 7:18, John Carl wrote:

> Well Platt,
> 
> Ant's continuance of this thread  caused some further reflection on my part,
> and I realized there is an ambiguity in the simple phrase:  "I can't tell
> the difference." that reveals a lot about your ideas of "reason".
> 
> literally it means "I can't speak the difference" but we use it to imply
> that "I can't discern the difference."
> 
> If you contrast Reason with intution, then I agree that reason is
> incomplete.  But let's give a nod to Grandfather Kant, and put that
> mentation in its own category - Pure Reason - and admit that as a practical
> matter our reason is the interpretative capacity to weigh our emotional
> reactions, our aesthetic sense, our educated knowledge and come up with a
> conclusion and a way of communicating it to our listener (another
> interpretation). And in this sense, we don't need anything but Reason, Sweet
> Reason, to  do the whole job.
> 
> John, being reasonable