I have always rather presumptuously regarded myself as something of an aesthete. I like to look or hear or experience things that seem to have depth and soul, I suppose in a way we all do however we choose to express it.
It is not important to me what source the aesthetic comes from and therefore I may not draw a distinction between the beauty that is inherent in nature around us from that which is created by those of us here. I do not see one as being the product of an omnipotent creator whilst the other is the mere triflings of ‘its’ creations. We are a product of the earth and just as anything that is beautiful here so anything we fashion is by extension a form of natural aesthetic.
Some people see that which is aesthetic and appreciate it, others seek to possess it and here the left-wing must stand against such action. To own an item that has aesthetic value is to deprive it of much of that aesthetic for you confine the circumstances by which its beauty may manifest. Something that is not only aesthetic but accessible by many is far greater in its power to influence and bring happiness than that which is locked away only for the dubious pleasure of the selfish individual. To feel one must possess in order to enjoy is a product of the avaricious society in which many of us have been brought up and the hegemony of greed is camouflaged by the notion that such action is inherent in human nature. It isn’t.
The removal of an item of aesthetic beauty from its environment may not seem per se make the item itself less beautiful but it may remove it from a part of the aesthetic makeup that may come from, or be in contrast to its surroundings.
Poppies are a pretty flower in themselves but the poppies that grew in the fields of Flanders were especially poignant precisely because of their contrast to all the killing that had gone on in the area before, their beauty showed that in spite of what had gone before an area could be reclaimed by nature and that the beauty nature had to offer transcended the deeds in that location that had gone before it. If people were to wear poppies on their lapels all year round it would rob them of their symbolism as the antithesis of war and death. If one were to pick the ones in Flanders and put them in a vase they would be no different from ones picked at the roadside anywhere.
We all have the ability to experience the aesthetic and the subjectivity of what we consider of beauty is something that marks out our individuality as people but in turn can bring much cohesion in common ground with those whom we might otherwise think we share nothing. The appreciation of beauty transcends class, geography, race, religion and gender it is a unifying force like scarcely any other.
The artist that creates and does so as a form of expression may not initially be seen first hand to be providing anything to society as say a skilled labourer or professional but one must take this in the context that society is all of us, each one a constituent and equal part of it. Much of creative expression comes from the exorcism of negative emotions and without this form of venting these feelings may fester inside and deprive the artist of their ability to be active and engaged. The loss of one person is of detriment to us all, but by extension the victory of one person over the negativity of their lives can provide us not only with the joy of seeing another reborn but something of a beacon of hope as to the fact that this can happen and to some who are like-minded a template of how this might be done. The re-emergence of that person into society renders them more likely to be a proactive and productive member of it and this in turn benefits both individual and society in which they may participate.
Song Of The Day ~ Supertramp – Take The Long Way Home
jeez. you are one person who says the most sensible thoughts in the world. and while i was reading this entry all i could utter to myself is “ahh, he’s right!” and then a bulb lights in my head, i nod, and then say it again, “he’s right” like i am some fuzzled prick. it does pay going to this blog. 😀
– Redbaron responds – It may merely be that I am the master of stating the blindingly obvious!!! However I don’t wish to be disingenuous and give you any reason not to keep coming here!
So what brought all this on, then?
I like your song choice. A gal named Tracy and I used to sing that on our way back to class after our violin small-group lesson in elementary school, when we would walk the longest route possible.
If art is for sale, then it can be bought, and I don’t think there’s any shame in that. Artists have to eat, too, and the idea that someone with great skill in other areas can make a living using that skill, but artists should starve because it’s romantic and right…well, not sure I can by that.
I was discussing art just yesterday with the Mr. I theorized that art is the dream state of a culture. The more I think about it, the more I like it.
Good to see you back.
– Redbaron responds – What brought it on was the fact that I see daffodils everywhere at the moment and whilst walking through the park I got to thinking about what made them aesthetic. Should art be for sale, does that not then put a value on something according to arbitrary fiscal consideration and the subjective valuation of those who deal only in the commercial? I agree artists should be able to make a living and I have not quite ironed out how to fashion that outside the boundaries of our very capitalist environment yet but give me time. Art being the dream state of a culture is good I like it, I might even have to steal it! However it is the dream state of the culture of the individual within the framework of the culture of the society around him/her. The individual comes up with the work but it is manifested in his/her environment – s/he is a part of that art and aesthetic just as any flower or building. –
Hi: I was googling Asterix and I came across your sweet memory of Chelsea: very lambent and lovely. I would say that things aren’t aesthetic: they’re just things. we are aesthetic, or we have one each, all different. It’s a way of seeing isn’t it, as Mr Berger would say, and informed by all the other stuff.
Selling items of “beauty” under the term of art merely gives a monetary value to some say is aesthetically pleasing. I don’t believe this actually changes the aesthetic charm of an item at all, and beauty can be found in anything. It is entirely subjective.
Once an item is sold (especially to a private collector) it still remains beautiful but is no longer accessible and the world loses a little part of the beauty around us. But that is only for “artistic” beauty, which is such a small part of what we see around us, and again is a subjective term.
I believe beauty (or what we each perceive as beautiful) is part of what gives humanity hope and helps us to carry on in a world which is unfair. To see objects/acts of beauty makes us smile, puts a slight spring in the step and helps us realise that there is a lot to be proud of in the world. We need beauty to help cope with the ugly!
Redbaron responds – I guess my biggest problem with the monetary value thing is that such a value is as subjective as the very appreciation of the art, however when finances come into play firstly this dictates a kind of level to which people will then prejudge, it puts inevitable parameters on what many people will see or expect to see without that being necessarily a fair reflection. It also brings in the profiteers and that’s when art starts to become of secondary importance to the money that can be made from it. It also prices many out of the market. Also what is the prevailing reason for buying? There is quite often this assumption of some value-added appreciation from owning something that it cannot deliver in the public domain. I do not see why this should naturally be the case and assume therefore it must be the fault of our education system. There is a worringly selfish pleasure derived from the notion of being the only one to be able to enjoy something and that is individualistic and destructive.
Beauty is indeed subjective but what I have tried to point out is that often it is a combination of factors which have an enhancing value, the contrast etc. and private collections rob it of that as well as robbing the world of something that could bring pleasure. Isn’t all beauty ‘artistic’ beauty, surely by it’s very nature and how we have chosen to describe it?