Comment on Beauty Is A Restless Entity

nom the puppet Wed, Sep 9, 2009
"beauty is transformative by nature and has the propensity to bypass our reasoning mechanism without initially implying judgments."

i don't know if i agree with that last part. in the case of art, the arena of beauty, the question of judgment is almost all-pervasive when the intention to present the work is there in the piece and the viewer is left to answer why. is there knowledge for beauty to make pleasurable without this judgment? if you're referring to the pure sense data from the perception of the artwork, in what way does such knowledge not imply judgment? what reasoning mechanism are you referring to?

can you elaborate more on the relationship between knowledge and beauty? you mention that it is a form of knowledge and then again as a means to make knowledge pleasurable.

i like the idea of beauty as a transformative quality or a novel experience.
Aesthetics I see as that which disturbs the obvious, disconcerts the known, unsettles the clear and provides a way ahead in our realization of ourselves both as individuals as a culture and as a species

-is the act of art the breaking down these established patterns of meaning if we are to consider it beautiful? what of the theories that beauty is the pleasure from strengthening/streamlining established cognitive pathways? can we definitively distinguish these pleasures?
-how do we make sense of communication through art without it losing the disruptive nature of beauty when the piece relies on the known to disconcert it? does art of the past become less beautiful as it becomes more well known?
-does the ignorance of beauty amount to a rejection of possible identity for ourselves as individuals, cultures, and species?
-does beauty always require a clear and obvious knowledge to act upon?