RE: ' This is where we need to agree with Derek's position that beauty and art cannot be defined except in very, very limited ways and are therefore useless terms. '
Er.. this is not what I said. Re" Derek will complain that we can say anything at all about art when describing it metaphorically" Try this: 'The gift of beauty is a giving beyond containment, where what is possible or necessary reveals itself in excessive forms. The world of thought and the practices of art all struggle to contain this revelation and the lives it calls forth. And still it gives itself beyond containment. In the name of beauty we desire both to contain it and to release it. In this way, then, beauty and desire turn around each other and give from and to each other. I understand this giving as if from the good." This is the kind of thing I referred to in my last post. N'importe quoi... It might work as a kind of ego trip for the writer but how does it help us understand anything valuable about art - or beauty? There's heaps more like this where it came from. But I'll spare you. DA On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 12:41 AM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think pleasing is a synonym for for beauty. I > think beauty is a complex and paradoxical concept. It > includes the displeasing and the discomforting, the > sublime as well as the charming. I am turning away > from my former thinking about the ultimate > subjectivity of concepts, a subjectivity that leads us > further and further into the ever-narrowing linguistic > fish traps that Cheerskep has anchored and from which > there is no escape. Maybe we can think again about > the ISNESS of other. I mean the awarenss of something > independent, a substance, quality, essence, lies > dormant until we apprehend it. This is what Aquainas > and Maritain called radiance, that which permeates us > as well as other and enliven, enlightens or reveals > subject and object. This radiance is beauty. It's > ontological. Sounds sappy, I know, but that's only > because we're so affected by scientific, materialist > positivism. > > Nevertheless I am not so sure that concepts like > beauty and art can be defined in terms of positivism. > Their necessary and sufficient features cannot be > found. This is where we need to agree with Derek's > position that beauty and art cannot be defined except > in very, very limited ways and are therefore useless > terms. He is taking the hard positivist's position. > He dismisses other approaches to those terms as vague, > unproveable, "lyrical" and non-exclusive. I do think > we can describe beauty and art, aiming at the > Scholastic's radiance, mainly by means of metaphor and > perhaps always limited to specific examples or types > of examples where "kinships" can be noted. > > This, then is the divide that separated me from Derek. > I am more and more drawing away from a materialist, > empirical, positivistic way of thinking about art and > beauty, a position always as odds with my fundamental > notions as an artist. Derek is not. He may admit to > some "inner necessity" that cannot be measured when he > claims such and such as art but refuses to define its > necessary, proveable conditions. He could simply > describe them but descriptions are one to one type > transferences, as-ifs, and therefore metaphorical > translations, and never universal. A definition must > be universal and that's why it must be positivist, > scientific, excluding the intuitive. So, ok, I agree. > We can't define art or beauty unless we narrow the > terms to nearly useless and unexceptional, to the > commonplace banality. > > Why not settle for describing? Why not try to state > the ends of art as distinguished from purposes. What > is the end of art as in what is the end of man? > Aristotle said the end of man is happiness. That is > why he exists. What is the end of art? I'll say > beauty. Purposes are subjective and thus individual. > My purpose as an artist may or may not be to prove the > end of art. The purpose of art is not its end. So > when we describe art we should aim to describe a > specific case(s) where the end of art is manifested > (as in my new best friend word, radiance). > > Derek will complain that we can say anything at all > about art when describing it metaphorically. I'll > agree and respond that it's the quality and the > enlightenment of what is said that matters and how it > helps to enliven us and the art in question and how it > may serve as a bridge to other art and further our > self awareness. If we can know the end of art, > beauty, we can also know the end of man, happiness. > > The best philosophy is poetry, music, art. > > Now, what monastery should I flee to? > > WC > > > > > --- armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What may the quality in something pleasing that > > may be equally felt by all humans in history, be > > called? > > To me, if that does not exist,then art may be just > > an > > individual thing, shared only by the almost like > > minded. > > mando > > > > On May 6, 2008, at 7:09 PM, William Conger wrote: > > > > > It's very hard to figure out if Derek is primarily > > > interested in ridiculing those who think > > differently > > > than he does about art or if he's really > > interested in > > > art. I think it's the former since he eagerly > > uses > > > his secret valuation of artworks and art as a > > > mouthpiece to shout disdain for anyone having the > > > stupidity to care about nuanced views of art. For > > > instance, his unreasoned opposition to 18C notions > > of > > > aesthetics and beauty, taste, and the like, are so > > > rigid and simplified as to demand commonsense > > > agreement. When issues are reduced to obvious > > > true-false conditions, one must choose sanely. > > Trouble > > > is, the case for Beauty, for example, is not > > easily > > > resticted to the true-false choices wherein the > > only > > > true Beauty is the pretty and the charming, the > > > decorative or the pleasing, as Derek would have > > it. > > > > > > Even though the concept of Beauty is not part of > > > philosophy prior to the 18C and may in fact now be > > > dead, we need to know why. We need to be sure if > > > Beauty is dead by examining the whole corpse, as > > it > > > were, and not simply its extremities. > > > > > > Beauty can be be a fundamental concept akin to > > > Aristotelian "Agent Intellect", later developed > > in > > > Aquainas' notion of inner enlightenment > > activiated by > > > an intuitive and creative transcendence and later > > > still by Maritan's notion of conscious and > > unconscious > > > radiance. These notions are of course very much > > out > > > of fashion in our current worldview and they > > threaten > > > the dogma that art is a purely subjective, > > cultural or > > > "institutional" construction, that objects cannot > > > have beauty or be art in themselves. I am not so > > sure > > > that this one-sided outlook is really correct. I > > am > > > thinking of Kandinsky's idea of internal
