In fine art, Pollack's stuff is no-talent BS;
Rothko's depressing nothing. Warhol's gimmacky marketing. But
Renoir's portraits still stand the test of time. Just a few
examples, of what I mean by aesthetics. Perhaps we should go
back and define our terms:
Yikes Virginia, don’t scare me. Traditional Native jewelry is
boring. Jackson Pollack is talentless? Mark Rothko is nothing?
Warhol’s not entirely to my taste, but honestly, if I had to live
in a world populated only by Renoirs, I’d go to sleep, if I
didn’t do myself in first…snoricide most likely. Beauty
is in the eye of the beholder…don’t know who said it, but it
was probably someone on television from The Home Shopping
Channel. Haven’t noticed a beauty, or an aesthetics barometer on
the market lately, but if popular opinion is any indication, the
jewelry stores at the mall must be the highest form of the art,
and Daniel Brush must be a hack, (I love his work, so maybe
there’s something more wrong with me than is already obvious).
According to our present President, and to most of the free
world, Mac Donald’s Rules, and why on earth would anyone want
to eat truffled foie gras, in a pinot noir reduction sauce, or a
filet mignon stuffed with oysters?(at Christian’s in New
Orleans…yum…). What I’m trying to say, is that there is no
gauge. Each person finds beauty based on their own life
experiences, and their understanding of those experiences. I
think that the broader your base of knowledge is, the more
accepting you tend to be of aesthetics that you don’t immediately
comprehend, or necessarily wish to embrace. Culture, education,
nationality and personal history all play equal parts in one’s
perception of , “beauty”:
Beau.ty (byoo’tee), n., The quality present in a thing or
person that gives intense pleasure, or deep satisfaction to the
mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations,(as in shape
color, sound, etc), a meaningful design or pattern, or something
else (as a personal quality in which high spiritual qualities
are manefest).
Sub.ject.ive (sab jek’ tiv), adj Philos. relating to or of the
nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a
thing in itself.
Beauty and aesthetics are personal and individual, not
universal. The validity of aesthetic works should not be suspect,
merely because one or the other of us takes exception to them,
based on our own personal taste or experience, or lack thereof.
Certainly, there is room for everyone’s vision of aesthetic
beauty isn’t there? Weeellll…ok…even I might balk at the
night-light version of Albrecht Durer’s, “Praying Hands”, or one
more CZ, stung on a piece of fishline, and sold as a necklace,
even if I do admire the marketing success…but other than
that… Good luck in your search for a clear cut aesthetic
paradigm Virginia. I still can’t figure out how the heck you’re
going to find it.
Lisa, ( Happy Summer Solstice everyone…half of the year over already), Topanga,
CA USA