I once proposed at an aesthetics conference - not entirely jokingly - that there should be a ten year moratorium on the use of the word 'aesthetic'. I now propose extending that to include 'beauty' (and its cognates, and 'ugly') .
I think the general quality of discussion about art would show a marked improvement in mental focus over the ten year period if people were deprived of these particular mental crutches. Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:14 AM, William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think Micheal and I are in basic agreement on all > points. I like his paragraphs below. This idea even > holds with evolution. If ugly is merely that which we > unconsciously reject because our physiologial makeups > are threatened by it. Even metaphors of the ugly > would evoke a masked physiological response. But in > fact, such threats are not inherently ugly, or lacking > radiance or that permeating essence I'm trying to > describe, either right now, or when I am at work in my > studio. > > WC > --- Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Is there beauty "in Nature" (out there, objective, > > in the world, > > etc.)? If so, is there also ugly? > > > > And if there is ugly in nature, what things are ugly > > ... in Nature? > > Creepy crawling things? Slimy things? Dull dun brown > > stuff? Why would > > those things (or whatever one might nominate as > > ugly)--why would those > > things be ugly? > > > > As far as I can discern, there are no ugly colors. > > Nor are there any > > ugly beasts, or plants, or landscapes, or textures. > > Can something be > > ugly in smell? or sound? or touch? or taste? Is > > ugly, and > > concomitantly beauty, only a property of vision? > > > > Can there be beauty without ugly? Isn't that like > > light (luminance), > > which is only perceived by comparison with dark? > > > > > > > > Beauty is a property of things perceived by humans, > > who can judge and > > evaluate abstractly. And since beauty is considered > > to be a > > culmination or perfection of specific qualities or > > characteristics, > > there is also ugly, the deficiency of those > > qualities. But these > > qualities are socially valued. Remember: there are > > no ugly things "in > > Nature." > > > > Artworks embody, make concrete in one way or > > another, these qualities > > of beauty and thus isolate them, as it were, from > > the demands of > > utility, so that beauty, grace, radiance, quiddity > > even, can be > > contemplated. That's what Aristotle means by > > catharsis and vicarious > > violence. > > > > Because artworks *do not need to be denotatively > > truthful*--because > > WoA's are fictions, because they do not have to have > > a utilitarian > > purpose, because they are free creations--the maker > > can concentrate on > > the accidental qualities of appearances, in order to > > manipulate the > > degree to which beauty or formal wholeness or > > another property can > > exhibit itself. > > > > Art moralizes nature. The artist takes the material > > qualities of > > things and forms and arranges them in such a way to > > produce an order > > to these qualities. Canons and rules and guidelines > > and other > > prescriptions are the socializing of the raw, > > unordered, un-beauty and > > un-ugly of nature, the making of preferences for and > > against ways of > > perceiving these qualities. Art is a social > > endeavor, and by being > > social, it subjects its materials (the stuff of > > Nature) to the mores > > of the group, of the society. Art moralizes nature, > > imposing > > preferences on colors and shapes and forms that, in > > the wild, occur > > for other reasons and purposes. > > > > And Nature, which precedes art, is indifferent to > > these moral rules of > > Art. From time to time, Nature rebuffs art, Nature > > supersedes art, > > Nature is superabundantly more than art, defeating > > the rules of art: > > There are no binding canons of portrayal in Nature. > > Ultimately, Nature > > demoralizes art--i.e., Nature de-moralizes art. > > > > Art moralizes Nature. > > Nature demoralizes Art. > > > > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > > Michael Brady > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --
