BVCuma on fri 12 apr 02
>>There is, in a
certain sense, there is no art and no beauty -- that is, in the sense =
that
people can "all" agree.<<
________________________
Goodmorning Martin,
=20
These are crucial points you bring up.
Art in particular and beauty less so
have alot to do with personal preferences.
Why some choose to dressup and decorate themselves
in a certain fashion leaves others quite offended...
In this sense we are "conditioned" to experience
our likes and dislikes...
happily and sometimes ferociously
we defend or attack these "beliefs"
and differences without quite understanding why.
>>this agreement is based on either received knowledge
that's accepted and/or shared cultural experience.<<
What we are specifically talking about here
is our conditioning... what we have "learned"
and been "taught".. what is good and right.
For example the chinese perceived small feet as beautiful
or some tribes with huge lip plates, or neck rings...
Coming from a different culture we see only deformation
and brutal ugliness.
>>a depiction of
Elvis on black velvet does not provide a pleasurable aesthetic =
experience
for many people.<<
Here I think we are talking more about mental references,
a series of memories triggered by the visual display...
more akin to Pavlov's dog...the mouth waters.
This would certainly fall into the grosser level of conditioned =
response.
>>But then there's that woman who recently
told one of our Clayarters that all she would buy is factory-made bone
china. And why not? It obviously speaks to her.<<
This point for me brings up secondary considerations
namely..process.
One who is oblivious to this contributing factor
is lost to a meaningful descernation with reference to beauty.
Yes she may have a "lovely" sense of style.
But a true connoisseur will not pay much attention.
Here is where gesture rises to the forefront...
and you simply cannot compare the two.
Depth of understanding will not fancy such novelties.
Though design elements may stir the heart...
ever so subtly.
>>But what does exist for all of us is the aesthetic experience, =
something
ultimately personal and subjective.<<
This is the vital point...
I do believe that at this level it is no longer
personal and subjective,
we are far beyond all that now.
The esthetic experience is there for all..Yes!
but only for eyes that see
and hearts that feel.
One who is trapped in poverty and survival
completely overlooks the possibilities of anything
other than how to get food and shelter.
The shallow are only interested in=20
supporting their pristine "image"
and exposing your "weakness"
in further confirmation of their superiority...
hence the "sophisticated" art appreciaters
ohhing and ahhing their way to respectability.
The genuinely wealthy who having "tasted" life
and finding that it isn't all and everything,
Pay millions of dollars for anything of authenticity.
And the "artist" who has seen the fallacy of chasing
image, fame, and fortune.... seeks
solace in finding the muse.
He is searching for higher things,
and is making the necessary sacrifices.
But my understaing is that there is a time and a season...
At some point you go beyond the outer catalyst
and find the aesthetic experience inside oneself...full-time.
The ultimate sacrifice being the one where the urge,
the excitement, the need to reduce it to an outer expression...
to create, is absorbed and recycled till
it manifests itself as a part of you.
Bliss descends...
The "aesthetic experience" if you will.
Bruce
| |
|
