Dear Krishna, I had to wait till 16:25 to know your Philosophy of Aesthetics. You say: The moment one looks at an object of beauty with certain "predisposed association, which is an emotional personal opinion/view, it is very diffiicult to perceive the object. as it presents itself to the eye" First of all, the object exists for the individual. The individual existence of the object is beyond the cognition of the aesthete; therefore, it is understood metaphorically (upacara-satta). Second, you are falling into the trap of Western "objectivism". Please read Antonio Damasio "Emotions have their reasons" to know more on this. Without ""attraction", there can be no association. Attraction is the act of appropriating the aesthetic object according to the "predispositions" of the viewer or the aesthete. Once it is "made mine", only then can I begin to like it or dislike it. The very fact that I like something is because I associate my "self" with the object; the object therefore is one with me. Third, you are terribly mistaken to deny the role of I-consciousness. If there is no I, there is no perception. May be that you like your Yadhukulakambhoji the most, but that does not stop you from liking or disliking a particular rendition of YK. You cannot say that "your" perception is "the" perception" and there is no more perception beyond this, as the latter is also influenced by non-perception (metaphors such as green sky are understood even of they are never perceived ) and many other factors. Lastly, your view of ego-centric understanding is closer to that of Bhoja, but your ego here refers to ahamkara, while Bhoja's notion of ego refers to srngara. Bhoja's view is more apt in the context of art, in general. Aham-kara is not applicable in Carnatic Music, as the rasika enjoys herself (srngara) liking the music and likes the others liking the Music. So, since there is sadharanikarana, there can be no place for ahamkara. Please read up on Bharata's Natyasastra, Bhanudatta's Rasa Tarangini, and of course Abhinavagupta's Abhinavabharati and Dhvanyaloka. Cheers. .
I think Krishna is telling that whether you like or dislike, we should look at it objectively to examine it. After that, it may so happen that we might end up liking it even more...
At several points during the lecture series (running into more than 800 minutes) TMK has explicitly stated that either he is speaking from his 'limited knowledge' (his words) or stating his opinion which the listener can either accept or reject.
Just saw someone tweet this,. Take example of Cooking. You like Bisibela bath and such kind of food. But underlying construction fo Salt + tamarind + vegetables + sugar is the aesthetics which also harks back tot he culture (south indian cuisine) that created it from elements present in nature in that part of the world
he is teaching all this so that we can learn about aestheitics and to help us appreciate form of raga rather than just personal like/dislike. which is not usefil anyway to learn. if we dont like modern art as we dont have exposure, learning aesthetics will first help us appreciate and thne undersand,.
Superb !
Dear Krishna, I had to wait till 16:25 to know your Philosophy of Aesthetics. You say: The moment one looks at an object of beauty with certain "predisposed association, which is an emotional personal opinion/view, it is very diffiicult to perceive the object. as it presents itself to the eye" First of all, the object exists for the individual. The individual existence of the object is beyond the cognition of the aesthete; therefore, it is understood metaphorically (upacara-satta). Second, you are falling into the trap of Western "objectivism". Please read Antonio Damasio "Emotions have their reasons" to know more on this. Without ""attraction", there can be no association. Attraction is the act of appropriating the aesthetic object according to the "predispositions" of the viewer or the aesthete. Once it is "made mine", only then can I begin to like it or dislike it. The very fact that I like something is because I associate my "self" with the object; the object therefore is one with me. Third, you are terribly mistaken to deny the role of I-consciousness. If there is no I, there is no perception. May be that you like your Yadhukulakambhoji the most, but that does not stop you from liking or disliking a particular rendition of YK. You cannot say that "your" perception is "the" perception" and there is no more perception beyond this, as the latter is also influenced by non-perception (metaphors such as green sky are understood even of they are never perceived ) and many other factors. Lastly, your view of ego-centric understanding is closer to that of Bhoja, but your ego here refers to ahamkara, while Bhoja's notion of ego refers to srngara. Bhoja's view is more apt in the context of art, in general. Aham-kara is not applicable in Carnatic Music, as the rasika enjoys herself (srngara) liking the music and likes the others liking the Music. So, since there is sadharanikarana, there can be no place for ahamkara. Please read up on Bharata's Natyasastra, Bhanudatta's Rasa Tarangini, and of course Abhinavagupta's Abhinavabharati and Dhvanyaloka. Cheers. .
I think Krishna is telling that whether you like or dislike, we should look at it objectively to examine it. After that, it may so happen that we might end up liking it even more...
At several points during the lecture series (running into more than 800 minutes) TMK has explicitly stated that either he is speaking from his 'limited knowledge' (his words) or stating his opinion which the listener can either accept or reject.
Just saw someone tweet this,.
Take example of Cooking. You like Bisibela bath and such kind of food. But underlying construction fo Salt + tamarind + vegetables + sugar is the aesthetics which also harks back tot he culture (south indian cuisine) that created it from elements present in nature in that part of the world
he is teaching all this so that we can learn about aestheitics and to help us appreciate form of raga rather than just personal like/dislike. which is not usefil anyway to learn.
if we dont like modern art as we dont have exposure, learning aesthetics will first help us appreciate and thne undersand,.
I think aesthetic has to do with something that has nothing jarring - theres just that perfect balance of all attributes.
hello sir, how can i join your classes. Im from bangalore..
Irritating audience
that one lady is so confrontational and annoying loll