[Platt] Sorry you had to wait that long before you could appreciate beauty. For most, a sense of beauty, like the sense of quality, co-exists with experience, beginning at birth.
[Krimel] To rephrase your buddy Wilber a bit what you are talking about above might be thought of a pre-aesthetic. It has nothing to do with art at all. In fact given it's universality among humans it would appear to be genetically determined like morality. Art is just something produced by an artist to be appreciated as beautiful. Nature without artists provides ample objects of beauty to satisfy this pre-aesthetic sense. Just read SA's posts. The ability to create art for others to appreciate might be termed tran-aesthetic in that it involves the ability to produce outward expressions of the inner beauty of one person that resonate with the aesthetic sense of others. Certainly our aesthetic sense changes over time; both in our ability to produce and appreciate the art produced. The point that you are missing is that the production of trans-aesthetic works of art absolutely depends of the development of science and technology. Furthermore an appreciation of the science and technology greatly enhances the ability to see and appreciate beauty. It adds new layers and dimensions to the infantile aesthetic sense. Perhaps if you had taken the spiritual and consciousness expanding disciplines offered to you in school as a child more seriously you could see this. But unfortunately talking to you is often like trying to explain the nuances of Thalo Green to a blindman. --------------------------------- > [Platt] > Progress in art? Not in my book. Beauty transcends time. It belies our > assumptions of growth and progress. Are our buildings more beautiful than > the Parthenon? > > [Krimel] > The Parthanon? You mean the one made possible by technological advances in > mathematics, architecture, civil engineering, transportation, logistics, > management science and materials processing? That Parthanon? > > [Platt] > Are our churches more beautiful than Chartes? > > [Krimel] > Chartes? More advances in all of the above plus the invention of glass, > glass staining and coloring techniques and metallurgy? > > [Platt] > Are our dishes more beautiful than Greek vases? > > [Krimel] > Oh you mean refined ceramics techniques, the pottery wheel, the development > of glazes and ceramic staining techniques? > > [Platt] > Are our musical compositions more beautiful than Mozart's? > > [Krimel] > The invention of musical notation, the pianoforte, stringed instruments, > refinements in metallurgy and invention of springs and valves for wind and > brass instruments? > > [Platt] > Beauty doesn't evolve and improve with time. The animal paintings by > unknown early humans in the caves of Lascaux have never been surpassed. > > [Krimel] > Seems I mentioned the invention of paint previously perhaps brushes and the > fuels to carry light deep into the earth. > > Tastes certainly change and I don't subscribe to any of your aesthetic > judgments but that is not the point. Not a single thing you mention above > would be possible without technological innovation and progress. True, but besides the point. I'm talking about art, not practicality. An example, quoting David Gelernter in his book, "Machine Beauty." "One of the finest artworks of the century is the 1938 J3 steam locomotive by Henry Dreyfuss for the New York Central's 20th Century Limited. It has a great smooth hemispherical nose divided vertically by a fin down the middle, an elegant smooth cowl shielding the cow-catcher and pilot, solid driving wheels with punched-out holes for counterbalancing; every line serves a purpose, every detail is an indispensable part of the balanced whole, and the finished product has the loveliness of overwhelming power understated. The J3 was sophisticated technology and it was beautiful. It remains beautiful. It is impossible to look at it without emotion." > [Platt] > Anyway, why beauty shows up in the equations of physics has never been > explained by those who reduce everything to quantum fluctuations. > > [Krimel] > Perhaps if you undertook a program of advanced spiritual discipline and > study, it would become clearer too you. Through ancient practices of > rigorous mental exercise, self denial, quiet meditation and long periods of > instruction under advance adepts, you too could undergo a process of > progressive transformation from novice to master. Eventually you might come > to a spiritual, metaphysical and symbolic awareness of the underlying > principles that govern all of mankind and our relationship to the world > around us. > > Where I come from we call this process of transformation of consciousness > and awakening to beauty: college. Sorry you had to wait that long before you could appreciate beauty. For most, a sense of beauty, like the sense of quality, co-exists with experience, beginning at birth. moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
