Since I'm the one who used the cliche 'to confront what it is to be human', I admit to its lack of clarity. I think Saul is as close to something clear in that regard when he speaks of the constructive aspect of being human. I take that to mean that humans must construct their human identities in an ongoing fashion through critical thinking, acting, and judgment in a feedback loop. I think making art is a culturally conditioned activity that specifically and purposely addresses that constructive identity in a material or objective way, I'll say that art has no other purpose, however it might be used.
As for incompleteness this is a term whose meaning varies by context. In some scientific contexts, as in mathematics or in prescribed laboratory activities where the end is recognized it is sensible to speak of completeness or incompleteness. Tasks in the applied art, too, can be complete or incomplete. In creative activities where the end is not known or continually imagined and surpassed, it is reasonable to say the incompleteness is a constant condition; it can be experienced but not defined. For that reason I am inclined to say that the aesthetic -- as a condition or experience -- is an instance of incompleteness. For it to be sustained at all requires a continuing reconstruction of sensing it. For that reason I think that a an effort to give a full accounting of the aesthetic experience or a supposed case of beauty would take forever and be forever incomplete. To return to the cliche, I think confronting what it is to be human is to recognize that it's a forever endeavor, always incomplete. I'd say the same for any work of art. It's never finished because no one can account for all the experiences of it and no-one can exhaust the possible ways might be finished. I agree with Cheerskep that we should always aim for clarity in our writing. It's hard to do. I've got my copy of Strunk's Grammar and try to follow his rules. But Cheerskep can't expect others to get into his mental apartment to clear a path down the halls and tidy up the kitchen just because he can't find space for new stuff being delivered. wc ----- Original Message --- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, July 24, 2012 11:57:14 AM Subject: Re: is list dead? In a message dated 7/24/12 12:40:00 PM, [email protected] writes: > the notions behind the words 'art' - > Let's set this one aside in that it is the chicken and being or becoming > Human is the egg. > > 'to be human' > My understanding of this is that is is an emergent subject, one that is > revealing or constructing itself in an endless process of cybernetic > revelations (becoming self-aware and intelligent.) Art (techne- > standardized knowledge) is one way we communicate and test this awareness > - being human is not a thing to be unpacked - but a state to be > constructed > and therefore any definition is always already metaphysical in nature. > > 'confronting" being human - would in this context mean challenging the > limitations imposed by any given apriori definition - which would mean > that > such a challenge would be in part an aspect of art > > Alas, this seems to me not one deepity, but a chain of them. Put it another way: None of the phrases occasions in me a notion that I feel is clear.
