Aesthetics: Difference between revisions
m (1 revision imported) |
m (Text replacement - " the " to " tbe ") Tag: Reverted |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Aesthetics''', also spelled '''esthetics''', is | '''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) | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 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, | 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) | ||
Revision as of 07:55, 26 April 2024
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) 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 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 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 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 tbe 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.
(see neo-primitivism; politics)