On Mar 1, 2010, at 2:28 PM, William Conger wrote:

>   Free beauty resides in something with no concept of how the thing ought
> to be made,or what purpose it ought to serve-flowers, Grecian arabesques or
> music without words.
>
> Put it to the test.  Try to make something for which there is no concept and
no purpose. Impossible.  I don't see how that can be.  No matter what you
begin to make, you can't avoid all sorts of associations, names, as-ifs, etc.
That why I can't get the idea of purposelessness.

I took this to mean the natural form and appearance of things, which are
(were) not made by humans with a purpose in mind. But I couldn't figure out
why Greek Arabesques (fret?) are in that list, and why horses are in the
adherent list.

I am intrigued by how taste functions or is affected by both kinds of beauty.

> Adherent beauty resides in things which come with a
> particular purpose and concept-people,horses (or cars), buildings.
>
> Again, this is too static and suggests that a thing remains a particular
thing.    It fits Kant's logic I suppose, to long for a state of beauty that
is free from utility.   But it doesn't square with reality.  No matter what
you say a thing is, a horse, or house, anyone can see it as a metaphor, as if
it were something else. I mean horse could be the aim but could also be the
word, or the sound of the word, or the goal of a 18C dandy, or an object in
middle ground of the landscape painter's picture.  We could go on and on.

I haven't got a good grasp of how you are using the term "metaphor." Sometimes
it seems straightforward in the conventional sense of a thing taken as a
symbol or representative of a different kind of thing. I grasp what I think
you mean by its being a word or the sound of a word. But when you say the
horse can be "an object in the middle ground of a landscape," I don't see the
metaphor, I don't see the horse in the middle ground "as if it were something
else." That is using the horse instrumentally, for example, to scale the scene
and give the viewer a sense of distance and scale, or the tilting of the
terrain.


| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady

Reply via email to