Aesthetics and art
There is a fundamental misunderstanding in judging artwork from the time of Aristotle. Since the Poetics art and the beautiful has been understood from the perspective of the observer. Tragedy is analyzed for what it does to us. Why don’t we think of it another way? If we see art and artwork as the creation of the beautiful, and understand precisely this – it is a creative act. Should we then not think of it from the perspective of the creator? See that the plenitude of one man’s soul overflows in the creation of some thing? If tragedy causes catharsis in the observer, what does it do to the Tragedian?
Loading...
Do you know of someone who speaks insightfully regarding why (insofar as the question “why” can be asked in this case) God should have created anything outside of Himself? If so, maybe there would be some kind of answer in that… I dunno…
achilleshttp://www.liverevolt.com/achilles/ - March 9, 2006 at 6:12 am
I mean, such as those reasons could be attributable to creator/creation simply speaking…
achilleshttp://www.liverevolt.com/achilles/ - March 9, 2006 at 6:13 am
Great thoughts! I have been in a conversation such as this one which was spawned by an ethics prof saying that Aesthtics is objective. That statement fell odly on me and set me off in exploration.
I agree with your conlusion. The creative process is beautiful. I find some music beautiful that most would not even consider music. I think this is largely because I find the creative pocess a beautiful act.
Well… I could ramble on but I won’t… Thanks for the post.
Matt - March 10, 2006 at 12:36 am
Mr. Achilles, I understand the qualification and there is some merit in what you say. To look at creator/creation from the aspect of creation is to misconstrue the issue (i.e., God needed to make the universe). I think the same has happened for 2000+ years in aesthetics.
But, to respond to Matt, I think you misunderstood me. I think aethetics IS objective, I only wanted to point out that it had been considered for millenia “upsidedown”. I am not talking about some nebulous “creative process” so much as creation, objectively in itself.
beitiathustra - March 10, 2006 at 12:52 am
“Kant, like all philosophers, instead of envisaging the aesthetic problem from the point of view of the artist (the creator), considered art and the beautiful purely from that of the ’spectator,’ and unconsciously introduced the ’spectator’ into the concept ‘beautiful.’” – F. N. (Genealogy of Morals, trans. Kaufmann)
Anonymous - May 9, 2006 at 8:34 pm
Well, anon, Nietzsche was wrong. It started with Aristotle.
beitiathustra - May 12, 2006 at 10:36 pm