Aesthetics is for painting as Ornithology is for the birds.
Alright, this time I will be serious and write something that may be another step in explaining why this blog works the way it does. My goal is to argue if and why my doings might be consider a voice, one of many, in the much fragmeted chorus of contemporary art. In other words, I will focus on the question what kind of people with bigger names are doing something that resembes to some extend our quotes and pictures and those illustrated essays. But first, feel invited to listen to this hit by The Cure and keep it in the background.
But when we look we do not see what Art is. So we are inclined to suppose that its essence must be something hidden, something that only an aesthetician can see, like the sounds that only a dog can hear…
In creating works of art we humanize the earth as we can in no other way, we warm it for ourselves, make it a place where we belong.
‘-Imagine that everything
which a beautiful woman can give one adds up to one
hundred per cent.’
‘-You bookkeeper . . .’
‘-Yes, one hundred. In that case, she gives ninety per cent of
that when one simply sees her, and everything else, the object
of a thousand years of haggling, is no more than an insignificant
remainder. Nor can that first ninety per cent be subdivided
into any component fractions, because beauty is
indefinable and indivisible, no matter what lies Schopenhauer
may try to tell us. As for the other ten per cent, it is no
more than an aggregate sum of nerve signals which would be
totally without value if they were not lent support by imagination
A similar, (…) argument against definition is the inductive argument. (…) [it] claims that this attempt to define art has failed, that attempt has failed, . . . , so the next attempt will probably fail.