An absolute theory by your definition is no longer a theory, is it?
Yes, an aesthetic absolute existed in late 19C Europe - it simply didn't yet admit expressionism!
Platonic theory would argue, I think, that the ideal of Beauty is an absolute - we're merely arguing about the pettyfogging details. Van Gogh was eventually admitted to the pantheon. The problems with an absolute are that it is defined and applied by we fallible mortals.
Proof? Well evidence anyway. Try 'The Republic' (I'll find chapter and verse for you if you want) or more recent argument for the existence of Beauty outside the individual consciousness, try Iris Murdoch's 'The Supremacy of the Good.'
The allusions to Greeks and Romans are hardly vague - most of our rules of composition seem to be based on the 'rules' they developed to try and define the absolute.
It's not a desperate clinging - the argument has great merit, especially in the face of "I don't know much about art but...." type comments. You are arguing a cultural relativism which also has its merits in some circumstances (it's awfully democratic for instance) but can be unrewarding and even dangerous at times, especially in areas other than art.
I photographed the second wedding of a friend last week - to someone also on their second attempt. That was a triumph of hope over reason. Well for their sake I hope it is.
AndrewF
Hello, Andrew Fildes:
An absolute theory is one that is sufficient, can't be refuted, obtains in all cases with no exceptions, and therefore requires no change. Personal preference, on the other hand, is rarely sufficient, easily refuted, obtains in only a few cases, and never stays the same.
Can it be said that an aesthetic absolute existed in late 19th Century Europe? Hardly. There was this chap Van Gogh. You know the story. So obviously the creation of an aesthetic absolute came afterward. But exactly when? Where? And by whom?
And what about burden of proof? Those who insist an aesthetic absolute exists never take the trouble to prove it. They often make vague allusions to the ancient Greeks or Romans, but do not cite chapter and verse.
Even intelligent and educated people desperately cling to the absurd notion not because it exists, but rather because they WISH it did, for obvious reasons.
Which is, as Emerson once said of love, "a triumph of hope over reason."
John Palcewski
Isola d' Ischia, Italia
Vittoria's Island, an imagenovel:
www.palcewski.com/VI
Photographically illustrated fiction:
www.palcewski.com/stories
From: andrew fildes afildes@netlink.com.au
Reply-to: photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Re: Gallery Review - 2/1/03
Date: Sun 02 Feb 2003 18:42:32 + 1100
"Men do not know why they award fame to one work of art rather than another." --Thomas Mann
But spend a lot of time justifying their choices and trying to 'know.'
Thomas Mann is correct. Largely because an aesthetic absolute, against which works of art may be evaluated and placed in a heirarchy of value, does not exist.
Plato and most of the other Greeks would disagree, I think. And many since.
Therefore art criticism can be nothing more than expressions of personal preference. To which ALL--however brilliant or stupid--are entitled.
And some expressions are well reasoned, beyond mere opinion or stances on personal taste. And what 'entitles' all to an expression?
Related to this is that virtually any work of art (or proposition, for that matter) can be successfully defended or attacked, provided one has a sufficient grasp of rhetoric. Smoke & mirrors, in other words. SNIP John Palcewski
Ah, now you're beginning to sound like Plato. It's all sophistry, hey?
Hmmmm.
AndrewF
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
