Or, what I'd rather say, is there's a difference between one's preference and one's aesthetic taste. The latter can be "trained" such that preference becomes something which can be judged from a distance — Moliere

There is knowledge "about" something and there is knowledge "of" something.

A sommelier can teach a Mormon "about" Merlot, such that Merlot is a dark blue wine grape variety that is used as both a blending grape and for varietal wines, and the Mormon can learn about Merlot.

But a sommelier cannot teach a Mormon "of" Merlot, the taste of Merlot.

An art teacher can teach an art student "about" Derain's aesthetic, such that until his passing in 1954, André Derain's aesthetic was constant, and along with his investigations into primal art and symbolism, his contributions to Fauvism and Cubism were notable in the formation of early Modern Art.

But an art teacher cannot teach an art student "of" Derain's aesthetic, the visceral beauty of particular shapes and colours.

When stung by a wasp, I feel pain. I don't learn how to feel the pain.

When "stung" by a Derain, I feel an aesthetic, I don't learn how to feel the aesthetic.

But an art teacher cannot teach an art student "of" Derain's aesthetic, the visceral beauty of particular shapes and colours.

When stung by a wasp, I feel pain. I don't learn how to feel the pain.

When "stung" by a Derain, I feel an aesthetic, I don't learn how to feel the aesthetic. — RussellA

Why not?

It'd be cruel to do intentionally but a teacher can teach knowledge of a wasp sting by having a wasp sting the student.

More acceptably we might subject a student to difficult circumstances in order for them to grow and learn how to cope with failure and pain.

Art students will frequently study "the masters" and emulate them as part of their training. They can never be Derain, but they can learn his aesthetic through this process of emulation along with a technical enough vocabulary to describe the techniques by which the artwork was produced.

You learn in the process of the doing -- but having a teacher generally helps to accelerate that process rather than doing it all on your own, so there is something being taught from art teacher to art student, at least. Something quantifiable, even (number of weeks until able to emulate so and so or such and such)

It'd be cruel to do intentionally but a teacher can teach knowledge of a wasp sting by having a wasp sting the student. — Moliere

What exactly is teaching knowledge of a wasp sting, the teacher or the wasp sting?

The person learns the feel of a wasp sting from the wasp sting itself, not from anything that preceded the wasp sting, such as a teacher.

If the person has congenital analgesia, no amount of teaching by the teacher will teach the person what a wasp sting feels like (Wikipedia - Congenital insensitivity to pain).

Fair. No one's going about teaching wasp stings, nor is that really connected to a knowledge.

But look at the artist example instead of that one -- it's different enough.

@J -- afterthought on electronic music.

One thing that comes to mind is that electronic music has its own technique. It could include trying to emulate the most "dirty and real" sounding recording out there, but it would not, for all that, be a recording of that.

Looking at the particular history here again.

But that does not then mean that the electronic musician doesn't have some sense of technique -- it's just a different set of techniques from the not-electronic (whatever happens to get to count there -- acoustic guitars on a mic not fit because there's an electronic amplifier? If so, then it may be the case that all rock and roll is not music, since that slam-in-your-face wow factor I think is largley tied to the technical ability to make it obscenely loud in concert)

I once watched a my children's 2 year old half sister with a piece of paper and crayons. She made dots. Many dots with one color, switched colors and made more dots. She used five or six different colors. No dots ever touched. She sat alone at the table, doing this calmly, and seemingly methodically, as the rest of us were in and out of there room, doing whatever. She knew we were there, of course, but you wouldn't have known that from looking at her. I frequently watched from the doorway, fairly mesmerized. I was very moved by the experience. I saved it, and gave it too her a couple years ago for her 18th birthday.

I'm calling it art. And it has nothing to do with the medium. Looking at the dots on paper might make some think of some modern artist. I don't know. But that's obviously not why I think it's art. For me, it represents the experience I had of watching this happen. It was breathtaking watching this 2yo go at it.


I don't have a video link to this. It's from the best tv show of all time: Northern Exposure. In an episode called "Fish Story", Holling is upset because Maurice made fun of his paint-by-numbers. Here's Chris explaining things to Holling.

Alright, you've got a very basic problem, Holling. You're confusing product with process. Most people, when they criticize, whether they like it or they hate it, they're talking about product. Now that's not art, that's the result of art. Alright? Art, to the degree of whatever we can get a handle on - and I'm not sure we really can - is a process. Alright? It begins in here, here (indicating his heart and his head) with these and these (indicating his hands and his eyes). Alright. Now, Picasso says the pure plastic act is only secondary. What really counts is the drama of the pure plastic act. That exact moment when the universe comes out of itself, and meets its own destruction.

Maybe Art, like so many things, is just a word only unified in naming and concept, but covering many diverging different things.

Edit: Why would it be a singular thing? Why should it have an essence accross obvious different disciplines? Because essences is what philosophy is supposed to reveal?

:up:

Good, bad, indifferent, what is it we are judging when judging a philosophy on aesthetic grounds — Moliere

Does it have to be one thing? Does it even have to be specified?

what is it we are judging when judging a flavour on aesthetic grounds?

Does it have to be one thing? Does it even have to be specified? — Banno

I think a little bit it does. Even ostensively.

what is it we are judging when judging a flavour on aesthetic grounds? — Banno

From the way I'm thinking about it right now I'd say it's me trying to judge whether someone else will like that flavor, given what they've said about what they like about flavor.

Ok.

On the other hand I'll acknowledge that you gave a theory of aesthetics that's general in the same way I'm attempting to.

It's very clear so I'm fine with proceeding with that idea, given you're distaste for the categorical question.