Aesthetics - Revision history

Bacchus: Text replacement - "tbe " to "the "

2024-04-28T23:41:33Z

Text replacement - "tbe " to "the "

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:41, 28 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Aesthetics''', also spelled '''esthetics''', is ~~tbe~~ philosophical study of beauty and taste. It is closely related to ~~tbe~~ philosophy of art, which is concerned with ~~tbe~~ nature of art and ~~tbe~~ concepts in terms of which individual works of art are interpreted and evaluated. According to its Greek etymology, ‘that which evokes a strong sensation’. Aesthetics is linked to notions of beauty, harmony, achievement of form.		'''Aesthetics''', also spelled '''esthetics''', is the philosophical study of beauty and taste. It is closely related to the philosophy of art, which is concerned with the nature of art and the concepts in terms of which individual works of art are interpreted and evaluated. According to its Greek etymology, ‘that which evokes a strong sensation’. Aesthetics is linked to notions of beauty, harmony, achievement of form.

	Contemporary egalitarian ideology abhors and implicitly demonises aesthetics. It associates (rightly) ~~tbe~~ will to power with discipline, which it considers morally unacceptable, ‘fascist’ in effect. This ideology opposes aesthetics to ‘ethics’ and situates itself in ethics’ iconoclastic tradition.		Contemporary egalitarian ideology abhors and implicitly demonises aesthetics. It associates (rightly) the will to power with discipline, which it considers morally unacceptable, ‘fascist’ in effect. This ideology opposes aesthetics to ‘ethics’ and situates itself in ethics’ iconoclastic tradition.
	With ~~tbe~~ plastic arts, architecture, cinema, literature, theatre, even fashion, ~~tbe~~ ugly, ~~tbe~~ unachieved, ~~tbe~~ unformed, ~~tbe~~ most far-fetched nonsense, ~~tbe~~ shady and ~~tbe~~ watered down are now preferred to ~~tbe~~ aesthetic, which is made synonymous with a menacing ‘order’.		With the plastic arts, architecture, cinema, literature, theatre, even fashion, the ugly, the unachieved, the unformed, the most far-fetched nonsense, the shady and the watered down are now preferred to the aesthetic, which is made synonymous with a menacing ‘order’.
	Since ~~tbe~~ mid-Twentieth century, contemporary arts, encouraged by ~~tbe~~ dominant ideology, have rejected any notion of aesthetics. Instead of harmony, ~~tbe~~ power of forms, ~~tbe~~ exaltation and elevation of sensation and beauty — notions of abstract ‘conceptual art’ are preferred, which becomes a pretext for degeneracy, wilful ugliness, and subsidised incompetence. Abstraction accordingly reigns, just as a jargonising meaninglessness and obscurity enthrals ~~tbe~~ intellectuals. The genuine aesthete, ~~tbe~~ authentic artist, is ostracised or marginalised — as if he were politically incorrect. Hence, ~~tbe~~ paradox of a society that strives to be ‘moral’ and humanistic, but ends up privileging barbarism, ~~tbe~~ inversion of values, and new forms of primitivism.		Since the mid-Twentieth century, contemporary arts, encouraged by the dominant ideology, have rejected any notion of aesthetics. Instead of harmony, the power of forms, the exaltation and elevation of sensation and beauty — notions of abstract ‘conceptual art’ are preferred, which becomes a pretext for degeneracy, wilful ugliness, and subsidised incompetence. Abstraction accordingly reigns, just as a jargonising meaninglessness and obscurity enthrals the intellectuals. The genuine aesthete, the authentic artist, is ostracised or marginalised — as if he were politically incorrect. Hence, the paradox of a society that strives to be ‘moral’ and humanistic, but ends up privileging barbarism, the inversion of values, and new forms of primitivism.
	We’re witnessing ~~tbe~~ simultaneous cohabitation of (1) abstruse ‘contemporary’ art subsidised by ~~tbe~~ system, (2) a cult which turns ~~tbe~~ ‘past’ into museum pieces, and (3) a commercial and consumerist subculture. Contemporary art has become ~~tbe~~ very opposite of avant-garde art. Its sad impostures haven’t budged for a century. It combines a dull academism, imposture, an absence of talent, and financial speculation. Instead of aesthetics, ~~tbe~~ system prefers pessimistic or suicidal values of representation, those that come from chaos and deformity, nonsense, pathological abstraction, regression, infantilism, scatology, a psychotic pornography: ~~tbe~~ exaltation of primitive forms (what ~~tbe~~ visionary Céline called ‘the tom-tom cult’ or what Chirac calls ‘primitive art’ ). Accompanying this wretchedness, this impotence of old men, there’s ~~tbe~~ vulgar, artificial boom of costume-culture, which is to culture what costume jewellery is to jewellery.		We’re witnessing the simultaneous cohabitation of (1) abstruse ‘contemporary’ art subsidised by the system, (2) a cult which turns the ‘past’ into museum pieces, and (3) a commercial and consumerist subculture. Contemporary art has become the very opposite of avant-garde art. Its sad impostures haven’t budged for a century. It combines a dull academism, imposture, an absence of talent, and financial speculation. Instead of aesthetics, the system prefers pessimistic or suicidal values of representation, those that come from chaos and deformity, nonsense, pathological abstraction, regression, infantilism, scatology, a psychotic pornography: the exaltation of primitive forms (what the visionary Céline called ‘the tom-tom cult’ or what Chirac calls ‘primitive art’ ). Accompanying this wretchedness, this impotence of old men, there’s the vulgar, artificial boom of costume-culture, which is to culture what costume jewellery is to jewellery.
	The rejection of aesthetics is crucial to ~~tbe~~ dominant ideology. For aesthetics, at root, is aristocratic, opposed to massification and fake elites.		The rejection of aesthetics is crucial to the dominant ideology. For aesthetics, at root, is aristocratic, opposed to massification and fake elites.

	In its historical essence, ~~tbe~~ political is a declension of aesthetics. ‘Grand Politics’ aims, in effect, at forming a people in history, making civilisation a creator of great works, turning civilisation itself into a work — a work of art. This conception opposes ~~tbe~~ modern doctrine that reduces ~~tbe~~ political to ~~tbe~~ administrative, that hollows out ~~tbe~~ notion of a people’s destiny, and rejects ~~tbe~~ creative projects of ~~tbe~~ statesman for ~~tbe~~ sake of ~~tbe~~ career politician.		In its historical essence, the political is a declension of aesthetics. ‘Grand Politics’ aims, in effect, at forming a people in history, making civilisation a creator of great works, turning civilisation itself into a work — a work of art. This conception opposes the modern doctrine that reduces the political to the administrative, that hollows out the notion of a people’s destiny, and rejects the creative projects of the statesman for the sake of the career politician.

	(see neo-primitivism; politics)		(see neo-primitivism; politics)

Bacchus: Text replacement - " the " to " tbe "

2024-04-26T16:55:56Z

Text replacement - " the " to " tbe "

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:55, 26 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Aesthetics''', also spelled '''esthetics''', is ~~the~~ philosophical study of beauty and taste. It is closely related to ~~the~~ philosophy of art, which is concerned with ~~the~~ nature of art and ~~the~~ concepts in terms of which individual works of art are interpreted and evaluated. According to its Greek etymology, ‘that which evokes a strong sensation’. Aesthetics is linked to notions of beauty, harmony, achievement of form.		'''Aesthetics''', also spelled '''esthetics''', is tbe philosophical study of beauty and taste. It is closely related to tbe philosophy of art, which is concerned with tbe nature of art and tbe concepts in terms of which individual works of art are interpreted and evaluated. According to its Greek etymology, ‘that which evokes a strong sensation’. Aesthetics is linked to notions of beauty, harmony, achievement of form.

	Contemporary egalitarian ideology abhors and implicitly demonises aesthetics. It associates (rightly) ~~the~~ will to power with discipline, which it considers morally unacceptable, ‘fascist’ in effect. This ideology opposes aesthetics to ‘ethics’ and situates itself in ethics’ iconoclastic tradition.		Contemporary egalitarian ideology abhors and implicitly demonises aesthetics. It associates (rightly) tbe will to power with discipline, which it considers morally unacceptable, ‘fascist’ in effect. This ideology opposes aesthetics to ‘ethics’ and situates itself in ethics’ iconoclastic tradition.
	With ~~the~~ plastic arts, architecture, cinema, literature, theatre, even fashion, ~~the~~ ugly, ~~the~~ unachieved, ~~the~~ unformed, ~~the~~ most far-fetched nonsense, ~~the~~ shady and ~~the~~ watered down are now preferred to ~~the~~ aesthetic, which is made synonymous with a menacing ‘order’.		With tbe plastic arts, architecture, cinema, literature, theatre, even fashion, tbe ugly, tbe unachieved, tbe unformed, tbe most far-fetched nonsense, tbe shady and tbe watered down are now preferred to tbe aesthetic, which is made synonymous with a menacing ‘order’.
	Since ~~the~~ mid-Twentieth century, contemporary arts, encouraged by ~~the~~ dominant ideology, have rejected any notion of aesthetics. Instead of harmony, ~~the~~ power of forms, ~~the~~ exaltation and elevation of sensation and beauty — notions of abstract ‘conceptual art’ are preferred, which becomes a pretext for degeneracy, wilful ugliness, and subsidised incompetence. Abstraction accordingly reigns, just as a jargonising meaninglessness and obscurity enthrals ~~the~~ intellectuals. The genuine aesthete, ~~the~~ authentic artist, is ostracised or marginalised — as if he were politically incorrect. Hence, ~~the~~ paradox of a society that strives to be ‘moral’ and humanistic, but ends up privileging barbarism, ~~the~~ inversion of values, and new forms of primitivism.		Since tbe mid-Twentieth century, contemporary arts, encouraged by tbe dominant ideology, have rejected any notion of aesthetics. Instead of harmony, tbe power of forms, tbe exaltation and elevation of sensation and beauty — notions of abstract ‘conceptual art’ are preferred, which becomes a pretext for degeneracy, wilful ugliness, and subsidised incompetence. Abstraction accordingly reigns, just as a jargonising meaninglessness and obscurity enthrals tbe intellectuals. The genuine aesthete, tbe authentic artist, is ostracised or marginalised — as if he were politically incorrect. Hence, tbe paradox of a society that strives to be ‘moral’ and humanistic, but ends up privileging barbarism, tbe inversion of values, and new forms of primitivism.
	We’re witnessing ~~the~~ simultaneous cohabitation of (1) abstruse ‘contemporary’ art subsidised by ~~the~~ system, (2) a cult which turns ~~the~~ ‘past’ into museum pieces, and (3) a commercial and consumerist subculture. Contemporary art has become ~~the~~ very opposite of avant-garde art. Its sad impostures haven’t budged for a century. It combines a dull academism, imposture, an absence of talent, and financial speculation. Instead of aesthetics, ~~the~~ system prefers pessimistic or suicidal values of representation, those that come from chaos and deformity, nonsense, pathological abstraction, regression, infantilism, scatology, a psychotic pornography: ~~the~~ exaltation of primitive forms (what ~~the~~ visionary Céline called ‘the tom-tom cult’ or what Chirac calls ‘primitive art’ ). Accompanying this wretchedness, this impotence of old men, there’s ~~the~~ vulgar, artificial boom of costume-culture, which is to culture what costume jewellery is to jewellery.		We’re witnessing tbe simultaneous cohabitation of (1) abstruse ‘contemporary’ art subsidised by tbe system, (2) a cult which turns tbe ‘past’ into museum pieces, and (3) a commercial and consumerist subculture. Contemporary art has become tbe very opposite of avant-garde art. Its sad impostures haven’t budged for a century. It combines a dull academism, imposture, an absence of talent, and financial speculation. Instead of aesthetics, tbe system prefers pessimistic or suicidal values of representation, those that come from chaos and deformity, nonsense, pathological abstraction, regression, infantilism, scatology, a psychotic pornography: tbe exaltation of primitive forms (what tbe visionary Céline called ‘the tom-tom cult’ or what Chirac calls ‘primitive art’ ). Accompanying this wretchedness, this impotence of old men, there’s tbe vulgar, artificial boom of costume-culture, which is to culture what costume jewellery is to jewellery.
	The rejection of aesthetics is crucial to ~~the~~ dominant ideology. For aesthetics, at root, is aristocratic, opposed to massification and fake elites.		The rejection of aesthetics is crucial to tbe dominant ideology. For aesthetics, at root, is aristocratic, opposed to massification and fake elites.

	In its historical essence, ~~the~~ political is a declension of aesthetics. ‘Grand Politics’ aims, in effect, at forming a people in history, making civilisation a creator of great works, turning civilisation itself into a work — a work of art. This conception opposes ~~the~~ modern doctrine that reduces ~~the~~ political to ~~the~~ administrative, that hollows out ~~the~~ notion of a people’s destiny, and rejects ~~the~~ creative projects of ~~the~~ statesman for ~~the~~ sake of ~~the~~ career politician.		In its historical essence, tbe political is a declension of aesthetics. ‘Grand Politics’ aims, in effect, at forming a people in history, making civilisation a creator of great works, turning civilisation itself into a work — a work of art. This conception opposes tbe modern doctrine that reduces tbe political to tbe administrative, that hollows out tbe notion of a people’s destiny, and rejects tbe creative projects of tbe statesman for tbe sake of tbe career politician.

	(see neo-primitivism; politics)		(see neo-primitivism; politics)

𝗔𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗹: 1 revision imported

2024-02-06T22:25:50Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:25, 6 February 2024
(No difference)

en>CatalystDrive at 13:41, 31 January 2023

2023-01-31T13:41:13Z

New page

'''Aesthetics''', also spelled '''esthetics''', is the philosophical study of beauty and taste. It is closely related to the philosophy of art, which is concerned with the nature of art and the concepts in terms of which individual works of art are interpreted and evaluated. According to its Greek etymology, ‘that which evokes a strong sensation’. Aesthetics is linked to notions of beauty, harmony, achievement of form.

Contemporary egalitarian ideology abhors and implicitly demonises aesthetics. It associates (rightly) the will to power with discipline, which it considers morally unacceptable, ‘fascist’ in effect. This ideology opposes aesthetics to ‘ethics’ and situates itself in ethics’ iconoclastic tradition.
With the plastic arts, architecture, cinema, literature, theatre, even fashion, the ugly, the unachieved, the unformed, the most far-fetched nonsense, the shady and the watered down are now preferred to the aesthetic, which is made synonymous with a menacing ‘order’.
Since the mid-Twentieth century, contemporary arts, encouraged by the dominant ideology, have rejected any notion of aesthetics. Instead of harmony, the power of forms, the exaltation and elevation of sensation and beauty — notions of abstract ‘conceptual art’ are preferred, which becomes a pretext for degeneracy, wilful ugliness, and subsidised incompetence. Abstraction accordingly reigns, just as a jargonising meaninglessness and obscurity enthrals the intellectuals. The genuine aesthete, the authentic artist, is ostracised or marginalised — as if he were politically incorrect. Hence, the paradox of a society that strives to be ‘moral’ and humanistic, but ends up privileging barbarism, the inversion of values, and new forms of primitivism.
We’re witnessing the simultaneous cohabitation of (1) abstruse ‘contemporary’ art subsidised by the system, (2) a cult which turns the ‘past’ into museum pieces, and (3) a commercial and consumerist subculture. Contemporary art has become the very opposite of avant-garde art. Its sad impostures haven’t budged for a century. It combines a dull academism, imposture, an absence of talent, and financial speculation. Instead of aesthetics, the system prefers pessimistic or suicidal values of representation, those that come from chaos and deformity, nonsense, pathological abstraction, regression, infantilism, scatology, a psychotic pornography: the exaltation of primitive forms (what the visionary Céline called ‘the tom-tom cult’ or what Chirac calls ‘primitive art’ ). Accompanying this wretchedness, this impotence of old men, there’s the vulgar, artificial boom of costume-culture, which is to culture what costume jewellery is to jewellery.
The rejection of aesthetics is crucial to the dominant ideology. For aesthetics, at root, is aristocratic, opposed to massification and fake elites.

In its historical essence, the political is a declension of aesthetics. ‘Grand Politics’ aims, in effect, at forming a people in history, making civilisation a creator of great works, turning civilisation itself into a work — a work of art. This conception opposes the modern doctrine that reduces the political to the administrative, that hollows out the notion of a people’s destiny, and rejects the creative projects of the statesman for the sake of the career politician.

(see neo-primitivism; politics)

== See also ==
[[Degenerate art]]

==External links==
*[https://www.britannica.com/topic/aesthetics Encyclopedia Britannica: Aesthetics]
*[https://theodora.com/encyclopedia/a/aesthetics.html Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 Edition: Aesthetics]
*[https://www.encyclopedia.com/philosophy-and-religion/philosophy/philosophy-terms-and-concepts/aesthetics Encyclopedia.com: Aesthetics]
*[https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/aesthetic-qualities Encyclopedia.com: Aesthetic Qualities]

[[Category:The arts]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]