Le 2.2.2003 10:09, « John Palcewski » <palcewski@hotmail.com> a écrit : > 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. Funny, concerning the refutable aspect of theories, I think it goes the other way around : Do you mean it would be a "scientific" theory ? In this case, second Popper a scientific theory is a refutable theory : the scientist who conceived the theory has given all the info needed to follow his logic step by step and refute it if needed. On the other hand, personal preferences can't be refuted : that's your taste, we can't discuss it using logic, we can only oppose our own tastes to yours, but we can't prove that your personal taste is wrong, nor that ours is better. (BTW, what you describe as absolute theory sounds rather like a totalitarian theory to me. The word absolute doesn't make much sense when linked to theory). > 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? I think that culture and esthetics are an emanation of the social structures and that beauty ideals exist in each culture. However, they differ from culture to culture and they aren't necessarily emphasized to the same level.. Ideal beauty isn't always the goal of art. It was very important to the Greeks and the masters of the Italian Renaissance. But in the Northern lands of Europe they were much more interested by realism than by ideal beauty (this is the case of the Flemish masters of the Renaissance for instance). I don't think that an ideal of beauty can "come afterward" : however, to state a cliché : great artists are often in advance of their time. However I wonder whether what is different is really the underlying ideal of beauty, or whether it is not rather the way they chose to express it, the language of forms they are using ? > 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 to the ancient Greeks or Romans, but do not cite chapter and verse. I think that the Romans were more on the side of realism than the Greeks. But there are a lot of proves, just look at paintings of Boticelli or Titien and compare to these of Rubens or Van Eyck.. > 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. It is a social construction, present in each society; it's not a static concept valid over time; it's a dynamic concept evolving each time a new add or a new painting is produced. And just as there are different subcultures in a society, there will be different ideal of beauty. > > Which is, as Emerson once said of love, "a triumph of hope over reason." In some case, it can also become a means of oppression : just think to the numerous women desperately trying to resemble the glossy paper women shown in the feminine magazines and the benefits that the big cosmetic or clothes corporations are able to draw out of it. All the history of art has been marked by this tension between the representation of ideal beauty opposed to the representation of reality. This concerns photography just as well. -- Christiane
