16 A digest of an alt.postmodern newsgroup thread on aestheticism,ascism, futurism, Benjamin, and landscape design
Description
This article is from the Postmodern FAQ, by Van Piercy vpiercy@indiana.edu with numerous contributions by others.
16 A digest of an alt.postmodern newsgroup thread on aestheticism,ascism, futurism, Benjamin, and landscape design
#2662
From: Mark.Weinles@launchpad.unc.edu (Mark Weinles)
Re: aesthetics and contemporary culture
Date: Thu Feb 09 05:24:22 EST 1995
In article <D3n8yI.GJ4@info.uucp> dblack@mach1.wlu.ca (david
black f) writes:
"An unfortunate condition of contemporary culture is the
general aestheticization of experience--where images and
aesthetic criteria for interpreting those images come to dominate
public life. This phenomenon has a history. [...] The aesthetic
has become the dominant element in contemporary culture, and the
difficult business of making value choices reduced to who or what
looks good. [...]"
Much as I admire Benjamin, I find his suggestion that
fascism is "the aestheticization of politics" to be one of the
least illuminating ideas that he ever set down. It may offer a
handy way to analyze Futurism, but I'd like to know why you
believe that it has a larger value, or, to put it another way,
why you consider that "the aesthetizing of experience" is neces-
sarily a misfortune. What about the other possibility that
"existence and the world are justified _only_ as an aesthetic
phenomenon"? (Emphasis mine.) And what do you think of the
criticism that your position derives from an animosity to
_style_?
-- Mark Weinles
#2703
From: nsbrown@news.IntNet.net (NS Brown)
Re: aesthetics and contemporary culture
Date: Sat Feb 11 18:38:40 EST 1995
Cris here. :)
[In response to David Black's post on the aestheticization of
politics and Futurism (essentially bemoaning the rise of style
over substance), Mark Weinless wrote:]
: Much as I admire Benjamin, I find his suggestion that
fascism
: is "the aestheticization of politics" to be one of the least
illuminat-
: ing ideas that he ever set down. It may offer a handy way to
analyze
: Futurism, but I'd like to know why you believe that it has a
larger
: value, or, to put it another way, why you consider that "the
aesthetiz-
: ing of experience" is necessarily a misfortune.
[...]
Mark, I don't know what David will have to say to your assertion
that "existence and the world are justified _only_ as an
aesthetic phenomenon," but I concur wholeheartedly. I even end
up arguing that we've constructed the "laws of science" the way
we have more because of *us* and our need for order, rather than
because of anything "writ large on the cosmos." The Universe, if
it can be said to exist as an "it," is a canvas upon which we
paint our experience.
Cris
From: nsbrown@news.IntNet.net (NS Brown)
Date: Mon Feb 13 08:29:21 EST 1995
Cris here. :)
[I wrote to Mark Weinles:]
: > Mark, I don't know what David will have to say to your asser-
tion
: > that "existence and the world are justified _only_ as an
aesthetic
: > phenomenon," but I concur wholeheartedly. I even end up
arguing
: > that we've constructed the "laws of science" the way we have
more
: > because of *us* and our need for order, rather than because
of
: > anything "writ large on the cosmos." The Universe, if it can
be
: > said to exist as an "it," is a canvas upon which we paint our
: > experience.
[Andy Perry replies:]
: Note, however, that order does not equal beauty. There are
many theories
: of perception, truth, etc. which argue that the "laws of
science" are
: constructed based upon human needs for order or prediction,
which have
: nothing to do with aesthetics. Of course, since I've already
shown my
: Nietzschean colors around here on numerous occasions, you may
have
: gathered that I too have an occasional sympathy for the
aestheticization
: of life...
I would agree that "order does not equal beauty," if by that
you mean that the two are not equivalent terms. They're not,
by any means. I think "beauty" is a superset, and "order"
one of its subsets. That is to say, I think we find beauty
in order, but we can also find beauty in not-order.
When we pass a carefully manicured lawn, freshly mowed and
edged, many are likely to say "What a beautiful lawn!" And
they're using the word "beautiful" correctly; for many see
that kind of order as beauty. (C.f.: an unkempt lawn with
shin-high grass, garbage lying around and a rusty old car
up on cinderblocks.)
Yet, most of us would find a perfectly conical mountain
"unnatural" and "ugly" compared to the rugged peaks of the
Rockies, and urban planners learned decades ago that
meandering streets have more "charm" than perfect grid-
work designs. Curiously, the field of fractal geometry
has shown that these seeming non-orders have an order of
their own, but you have to leave integer-dimensionality
to see that order. Fractal-generated music seems to be
aesthetically pleasing to many listeners; it's modelled
in 1.5 dimensions and if given a bit *more* order in terms
of repeating passages and movements, it's difficult to
distinguish from human-generated music. (See Peitgen &
Saupe, Eds., _The Science of Fractal Images_, (1988)
at 42-44.)
We rarely find *utter* randomness to be "beautiful."
Cris
From: mcmcgee@isocrates.win.net (michael calvin mcgee)
Date: Tue Feb 14 02:24:11 EST 1995
Re: aesthetics and contemporary culture
In article <3hjhq0$lbu@xcalibur.IntNet.net>, NS Brown
(nsbrown@news.IntNet.net) writes:
>[In response to David Black's post on the aestheticization of
>politics and Futurism (essentially bemoaning the rise of style
>over substance), Mark Weinless wrote:]
>
>: Much as I admire Benjamin, I find his suggestion that
fascism
>: is "the aestheticization of politics" to be one of the least
illuminat-
>: ing ideas that he ever set down.
[...]
>Mark, I don't know what David will have to say to your assertion
>that "existence and the world are justified _only_ as an
>aesthetic phenomenon," but I concur wholeheartedly.
Lest we forget, gentlemen, the association of fascism with this
thread of argument is not simply flaming. Mussolini especially,
and also Hitler, theorized "cultural politics" as the way both
to excite and to control the "experience of the masses." Insofar
as fascism is characterized by +any+ ideological uniformity, it
would be the firm commitment that politics (and even science) had
to be "aestheticized." When "existence and the world" are argued
for solely on a construction that they are "aesthetic phenomena,"
nothing is left to give the "artist" pause. Not only can this be
dangerous politically, but it is also a questionable stance from
an aesthetic viewpoint, because +negation is a necessary posture+
for all artists. "Pure creativity" cannot be "art," for it has
no means to reject its "false starts." Without such terms as
"grace," "eloquence," "style," etc. +you can't have an
aesthetic,+ and without an aesthetic, you have no justification
for your experientialism.
michael
Continue to:
My Books
