[PREV - HOME_PLANET] [TOP]
LOST_IN_BEAUTY
September 16, 2003
August 02, 2007
Let's work through the primer.
Esthetics are important,
if only because ethics
are esthetics in disguise. BEAUTIFUL_GOODS
Art need not be beautiful
(Robert Crumb).
Ugliness and Beauty need
not be antonyms.
Extreme ugliness can
transcend itself to
become another kind of PUNK
beauty. (Metal Machine Music)
The beautiful need not be
art: there is natural beauty.
Art is better thought
of as an attempt at
communication than an
attempt at creating
beauty.
In found art, the
artistic act is an act of
selection, but the result
is also intended to speak
to a human audience,
though as always the
message need not be
clear.
By "clear", I mean
easily translatable
into verbal summary.
The distinction between art
and ordinary communication
is that art has no obvious This is not the same
survival value. as saying it has no
survival value. SURVIVAL
Opposing art to nature
works only given the
idea that human
activity is in Question: is there an
opposition to nature. animal activity that Difficulty: most
might be compared to animal activity
An alternate the creation of art? is "instinctive".
taxonomy would take and art is not.
humanity as part of
nature, and call My take: this makes Though, as always
art the natural the term "natural" it's possible to
activity of humans, nearly useless, by claim that there's
declaring anything an instinct toward
that exists natural. art, though the
specific activity
So, let's take the is cultural.
opposite premise:
art is unnatural.
Note: Feel free to
interject "in this
culture" at any point
through out the Genetic determinists can
following. try the phrase "because
we evolved that way".
(Many like
the idea of
biological
determinism:
Women are associated with nature. a god for the
godless.)
(e.g. childbirth, emotion)
Women are asociated with art.
Their bodies are
regarded as malleable:
Much technique
is allowed,
if not required to makeup,
change women's clothing,
appearence. exercise, and now:
diet
Though the goal of tattoos,
manipulating piercing
women's appearence hair surgery
is often thought dyes
of as beauty, but
this is not always
the case:
Much of it has to do
with looking normal,
standardized,
irrespective of beauty.
The imposition of
order on nature? Possibly:
Niceness is the
triumph of order.
NICE
So the Venn diagram thus far is
/------------------------\
/ |
| /-----------------\ | /----------------\
| / \| / \
| c / art /--------|/-------\ nature \
| o | / || \ |
| m | / beauty || \ |
| m | | || | |
| u | __|___________||__________|____ |
| n | / | women | \ |
| i | | | ||
| c | | \/---------||--------\/ | |
| a | | /\ || /\ | |
| t | | / \--------||-------/ \ | |
| i | | | || | | |
| o | | | || | | |
| n | \_|___________||__________|____/ |
| | | || | |
| | \ || ugliness / |
| | \ || / |
| \ \---------|\--------/ /
| \ /| \ /
| \-----------------/ | \----------------/
| |
\-------------------------/
But maybe that's not all that interesting.
Let's check it over:
Art can be neither
beautiful or ugly.
Okay.
There's a possible mis-reading
if you presume that all women
must fall on one side or the But: how is it I've had
other of the art/nature split. nature as a sub-set of art?
Really you would expect that There's supposed to be
any individual would have non-overlapping, given
aspects of both. my "art is unnatural".
This is okay, though: (Fixed: Aug 2007)
I'm talking about
"womanness" not women
as individuals.
Rename the class for
clarity: "femininity"?
The art of
the "feminine"
can be aimed
Hm, it appears to imply that at neither
woman are often attempts at beauty or
communication. ugliness: there's
a third category
Perhaps the left here that's
boundary of "women" unlabeled,
should be moved up which I've
to the Art-Nature associated
boundary? with order,
niceness,
But no: I guess or perhaps
this is right... "normality".
The thesis is that So that checks.
women transform
themselves into
messages...
--------
[NEXT - ROLES]