OK, it didn't get to me and I always thought you had it right anyway. Artists normally do.
WC --- armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not on the archives > > > Of course, I meant any form that means pleasing or > displeasing. That's been my tune from the beginning. > Evidently you have not read any of the previous mail > that never got there. > > > > I 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 7, 2008, at 7:44 AM, William Conger 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. > > > > The essence of things is my only source as I sense > it and express it, to my pleasure from day one. > I don't necessarily call essence, beauty, but to > me > it's what evolves and changes within my being > through my experiences. I would not deny that it > is usually the taste that give me the most joy. > > > > 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. > > > > > I take Scholastic radiance to be the essence that we > individually sense. You might clarify. > > > > 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). > > > > I cannot describe my own art, but I can describe how > I arrive at my conclusions. I've said before, and as > simplistic as it may sound, It has filled my life > with > endless satisfaction. I take great pleasure in the > transformation I do to the essence of forms ,colors, > sounds, ideas etc. that I sense in nature. I don't > try to reach or emulate nature, because it's > impossible. > So I retreat to my comfort zone of pleasure to > create > something unique and meaningful to me, and universal > in quality as i know it. > > > > > > > > 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,
