Derek has never told us "the aim of art" - and I am quite certain that he
never will.
So -- I think we may freely speculate on why he feels it is insufficient for
art to just please or satisfy -- and I propose that it's that same kind of
puritanical impulse that we find among fundamentalists of every stripe.
Not that he subscribes to any specific creed or philosophy -- just that he
shares that same perverse impulse to deny oneself the pleasures of life.
Why do some people abuse themselves in this way?
I'm sure there are many possible cultural and personal explanations -- but
rather than analysis -- I think the best therapy is simply a kind of positive
reinforcement -- a mantra to be repeated after every aesthetic experience --
like:
"this was really enjoyable - and I really deserved to enjoy it!"
To be repeated as often as necessary.
There should be no shame in accepting oneself as a "Sunday afternoon
aesthete". Presumably, if one is not being an aesthete the rest of the week
-- it's only because of other responsibilities.
I'm something of an aesthetic fanatic myself -- but some genres, like poetry
or film, I don't even visit one-a-week. (I think I'm watching about 5 movies
a year - and some those I walk out on)
But still -- I want poets and film makers to dedicate their lives to making
things that will please me. (as I dedicate mine to those who love certain
traditions of figure sculpture)
*************
Derek wrote:
"My point related to the seriousness of art as an activity - the fact
that the aim of art is not just to 'please' or 'satisfy' (like a good
wine or something)."
____________________________________________________________
Debt collectors calling your house? Click here to consolidate into one
payment.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijmNTwskDZN8zwgM5SQspPjOP
PxREZUVzae1ES5A2O9OCdTN6/
