A key element in the dispute between William and Derek about "beauty" is
indicated by their referring to "the concept" of "beauty". That way dizziness
lies, gentlemen. Never, not even at its usage heyday, was there a "the" concept
of
beauty. I'm not making simply an ontological assertion here; I mean that no
matter what it seems like from a distance the notion of beauty in the minds of
the many people using the word varied more or less from one person to another.
My second point in this posting: In a core regard, William seems to me a lot
closer to Derek than I suspect William would like to be. William's notion of a
"radiance" being somehow "in" a work is very like Derek's conviction that a
work either has "artness" or it does not. Beats me how either man reconciles
this view with a realization that other folk of high sophistication and
demonstrable sensibility can look at the same work -- that William and Derek
perceive has "radiance" and "artness" -- and say the work fails, it's a bummer.
A guy I'm thinking of I jigged together a stipulative definition of "art"
based on his own response to it: "For me, a work of art is any man-made object
that gives me an a.e., and I recognize all such sui-generis experiences as
distinctly as I recognize, in another area of activity, whether or not I have
ejaculated." He went on to say he realizes that lots of people don't get a.e.'s
from the same works as he does. This, he figures, implies "artness" is not in
the
work. Each work comprises many specific directly perceivable elements -- none
of which is the alleged "artness".
He said "It's like me, a heterosexual man, contemplating a woman. I see lots
of specific elements, I see nothing that is specifically "sexiness"; but I
concede that if the aggregrate of the elements I directly see arouse me, give
me
an erection, I might in kitchen-table language say, "That woman is sexy." But
I can imagine that if specific, directly observable elements were changed, I
would not be aroused, I would not call her sexy. With the word 'sexy', I am
commenting not on some "essence" of sexiness that is in the woman, as William's
"radiance" or Derek's "artness" is said to be "in" the art. I am commenting on
the effect on me of the numerous specific, directly observable elements."
He went on, "I certainly don't think "deliciousness" is a "quality" in
certain edibles. They are what they are, and the reaction of "Delicious!" is
solely
in me, not in the edible. It can be occasioned in me by the very elements that
make the next guy nauseous.
"Take Grandma's stew. To me it was always delicious. Then one night I said,
'This is not delicious!' Grandma took it back to the kitchen for minute. When
she brought it back out, I tasted it and said, 'Now it's great! Did you add
deliciousness?' 'No,' said Grandma. 'Salt.'"
"My sister had a boyfriend. She told me he "oozed sexiness". Then the poor
guy got an exotic infection that ate away large portions his skin, and left
him with pustules and scabs. With great sadness my sister said she no longer
found herself aroused by him. I said, "So the infection ate up his sexiness
too?"
My sister was wise to me. She said, "No, but it did eat up the great skin I
used to love to feel. And it's no good pretending I want to kiss his face the
way I used to."
"My sister bemoans her good friend Jane. "She thinks her boyfriend Ralph is
sexy. But Ralph is very hairy. I hate that. Jane says, 'But I find that very
manly! That, and the way he smells. It turns me on!'"
"In sum," said this guy I'm thinking of, "I think William and Derek are
stirred by a combination of directly perceived elements. They get a feeling
they
can't quite attribute to the specific causes in combination. So they say, "It
must the artness!" or "There's a radiance it has!" But, strangely, they don't
agree on which objects have the radiance and artness they both claim to be able
to perceive. In fact, they even disagree about the "artistic" desirability of
various elements they separately cite. How can this be, do you suppose?"
Told him, Gosh, I just don't know.
**************
Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
