Okay, if Kalessin gets a decent reply, I think I'm entitled to one more comment before accepting disarmament.
Quote:
|
Respect to Aiwendul (and Bobby Fischer, although the Karpov and Korchnoi mind wars were utterly gripping, Glen).
|
The best to play through are Tal's games though - those ones where he reverses the entire game with a single brilliant combination.
Quote:
|
The only way is to find, and be willing to accept, aesthetic conceptions that (by consensus, and knowing they may change) are not completely subservient to the individual. That somehow reflect a collective act of definition and aspiration. Once you have those, then you can fight against them, you can be snobbish or elitist, you can abuse or misuse them, you can do all the things that we do, but you DO become a stakeholder in the experience of art that goes beyond self-gratification.
|
I actually essentially agree with you here. I think that there is (or should be) an objective theory of aesthetics that is able to predict what art is good and what is bad - a theory which is of course a human invention, and therefore on the most basic level subjective. Where we differ is that I think the purpose of art is pleasure; thus, whatever one believes the objective theory to be, it should explain why the things he or she likes are good.
Quote:
|
Anyway, I'm exhausted now, so I propose one final consensus. Let's agree to differ.
|
Okay, truce accepted.
[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]