I am inclined to agree with Frances' statement. I think the notion of radiance is not limited to images of glory or such but is more like the idea of catalyst, some potential for effulgence or, as Frances suggests, abundance. It is also a notion that requires both subject and object in order to become manifest but can otherwise exist independently. All of this talk is a bit disturbing to me because it's so metaphysical, belonging more to old philosophy, the Scholastics, and now to poetry and intentionally metaphorical language, form, etc. But it's a pathway out of the absurd materialist corner we're in these days, not only in art.
For excellent exposition of the view, I suggest almost anything written lately by Donald Kuspit (see www.artnet.com for several essays) or his recent book, The End of Art (2004). I've always admired Kuspit's approach, vivid and compelling, outspoken, iconoclastic, ruthless in exposing the emptiness of the commodification of contemporary art. But my aesthetic was shaped in an earlier time, the days before overt irony, the apotheosis of Duchamp, and the business of art and degradation of high art to everydayness. I am mad by the standards of our postmodern, post colonial, post worthy artworld. Another sign of my possible madness is that I find myself agreeing with Miller more and more often, although I still totally reject his admiration of flunky Nazi sculpture and his fellow-traveler tolerance of Rand, Soviet type nationalist realism. If he could just give up that art for the common man American Regionalist provincialism, he might be more compelling. And I am further than ever from Derek and his inability to distinguish between the value of art history and the appreciation of art and his refusal to state the terms that guide his judgments -- or admit that they are "spiritually" centered and therefore descriptive, metaphorical, poetic. And will he ever get past regarding the list as a classroom of freshmen to be awed by didactic bombast and ridicule instead led to engagement with nuanced dialogue? And now do I agree with Frances? What is happening to me? I am drowning in a warm bubble bath of murky ambiguity. Cheerskep, toss a line! Michael, send oxygen form Barzun! Hurry! Everything looks fuzzy! WC --- Frances Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frances to William and others... > The term beauty as an umbrella for aesthetic objects > like natural > finds and artistic works is clearly a problem. That > thing of an > object which seems felt for its own sake alone, and > that gives > any object an aesthetic state or some object an > artistic status, > is likely found in the form of the object, and thus > this thing of > the form is its ideality. The ideality of form can > include the > ugly and beauty as well as any infinity and > continuity and > sublimity and ambiguity and purity and unity and > surety and so > on. This umbrella of the ideal hence allows for the > beauty of the > unbeautiful, to include say the ugly and feral and > horrible and > evil and wicked and demonic and satanic. > Furthermore, the label > of abundance may be better then radiance as an > alternate global > substitute for beauty, because abundance implies > immediacy and > sufficiency and efficiency and adequacy and holism > and closure, > yet it also implies an appropriate purpose for the > sake of some > other sake, which contradicts the need for an > intrinsic being of > ideal aesthetic or artistic form; and many ideal > forms of pure > decay felt to bear nice beauty are hardly radiant. > The rational > key here to justify such an ideal approach to art > would perhaps > be the logic of relativity where the object and the > subject are > related together in a common ground of conformity. > An ideal world > of even pure perfect beauty, but without a normal > sentient human > to feel it, would after all be pointless and > meaningless and > useless. The objective and the relative and the > subjective > therefore are likely all needed together in order to > form a real > ideal aesthetic whole. This logic may not offer a > final > definition of say form or beauty or art, but it will > identify > them and may even tentatively explain them to some > agreeable > degree. > > William 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
