The attached essay on the Psych of Art may have some relevance to this discussion. p -----Original Message----- From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Christine Schweighart Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 6:14 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: Re: [xmca] The essence of the aesthetic reaction Hmm, A reminder of Bateson's work, Hugh, and his appeal towards function and form. Larry I also have wondered how to understand, not *reception* of Art, as consumption but rather production and aesthetic response in everyday life. I have not read Margaret Gredler, but here * humans actively intervene in situations in which natural processes are inadequate I'd ask as living beings we can't really be totally separated from our bodies and 'natural processes ( I think this turn of going above the biological became emphasised in reaction to theoretical stimulus response theory - but we have now passed this moment and it needs different expression) 'Mastery' is not open -ended in this terminology . * humans create or appropriate symbols to gain control and MASTER a cognitive process * the symbols do not change or influence the object of the task but the symbols redirect or reconstruct the individual's cognitive behavior in approaching the task. Another essay borrowing from Vygotsky appears here http://www.bath.ac.uk/csat/reading/documents/2012/060212reading.pdf Reading through pp4-8 I still struggle to find production rather than consumption of art objects. It wouldn't be 'the other way round' that David encounters as weird " we begin by an idealizing abstraction, and it is only in the subsequent development of our aesthetic sensibility that we approach complexity " As production would be cognitively reaching idealizing abstraction in our embodied living (I take Wittgenstein's 'full-blooded' to be a nod to embodied living) . Christine. On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>wrote: > On 27 May 2012 18:46, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Christine [and others] > > I'm in over my head with this question and was hoping with the right > > question to further the conversation and thereby expand my > > understanding > of > > *aesthetic reaction* as a concept. > > This term for Vygotsky seemed to be central to his elaboration of a > > *method* of analysis that he then applied to concept development. > > This method was exploring the *essence of a phenomena. > > > > The article Christine recommended from the site *Stanford > > Encyclopedia of > > Philosophy* [p 8] has this statement: > > > > For Wittgenstein complexity, and not reduction to UITARY ESSENCE, is > > the route to conceptual clarification. Reduction to a simplified > > MODEL by contrast, yields only the illusion of clarification in the > > form of conceptual incarceration ( a picture held us captive) > > > > As I mentioned I'm in over my head. > > > > Perhaps you're upside down? Complexity is the norm. The simplified model > only aligns under certain circumstances which are special cases of > complexity. > > Huw > > > > > > Larry > > __________________________________________ > > _____ > > xmca mailing list > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > > > __________________________________________ > _____ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > __________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Attachment:
MCA2011-Psychology of Art.pdf
Description: MCA2011-Psychology of Art.pdf
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca