A River of Dreams

[Dominique]

Dear People,

Thank you so much for all your comments on this thread. I had a bit of flu these days and was unable to react until now. Also in any case I wanted to put my thoughts together. I want to say first, that I agree with all of you in some ways. I may even add that one of the reasons I posted this is because I am a bit ... unsure of where all that poetry can take me. Until now in my life I have not done much (= acted in the ... practical world, so called), and I am definitely searching for something to do, best of all would be something that helps "bring down" these insights I have of a "better" (?) reality. For I must add that, as far as one can assure something to anyone, I am not imagining these ... er ... things. How to prove this ? Indeed, let's not try. But it should be remembered that it is not because a particular person does not experience something, that that something does not exist. Many easy examples of this can come to mind.

My state of mind is indeed not very "practical" in the sense that I am not very interested in the world - as it is generally understood. Though I can be very well organized, and do practical work very neatly when I want. My house is orderly and clean, and all that, and I am almost always up to date with everything, whether it be finances, library books, laundry, shopping, possessions (nothing unnecessary, and all in good state if possible), mail, appointments, and anything. (I admit it took me some time to come to that, but all right, I am there !) This to emphasize that I am not a wooly head always dreaming. I just feel that there is much more than the visible world. And not only that, but in my eyes that's what religion is about : to take us back to the full spectrum of life, so to speak. That's where rationality comes in : I fully agree that there should be a balance between rationality and ... what ? The irrational ? Hum. In any case, I would be very grateful if Blue could provide me with his own definition of rationality. I would like to then think about it more. I do feel that in my life I have been concentrating so much on the "irrational" let's call it for now, that I might from now on be ready to tone it down to visible reality. To use it for practical purposes. This was confirmed to me by Blue's messages. So, thank you very much.

Until now, I felt I had to develop this insight into the irrational, so as to be able to use it later. Is God rational ? That is the question. Or maybe not. Probably It is everything, so that's not a problem.

Anyway, to me art is something that should be beautiful, AND gives hope. The one goes with the other. Something that is not beautiful cannot give me hope. And what gives me hope is beautiful - is beauty.
Why ? Because it feels closer to the real nature of things. It is an unshakable certainty to me (and not only a concept, but sustained by experience more and more), that God's beauty defies the imagination of the wildest dreamer.
What I write or could write or what anyone has written until now, is still very far from the real Beauty out there. It is only an allusion, a pointing mark or something, a pale ... copy of a copy of a copy. And anyway, words cannot express it, they are too limited. I use them to come a little closer to where I want to be (in that absolute Beauty). I am not alone in saying that, right ? Many teachers say that God is undescribable. Well I certainly would agree.
And not only that, but even the ordinary world - the street you have lived in for 20 years in a not so fantastic neighbourhood, for example, that you know so well, can through spiritual experience become suddenly so beautiful and invested with such a Presence and Greatness and Meaning, it takes the breath away and one wonders if one has been dreaming all the time, not to have seen this before ! I'm not preaching here, and I can't say I have experienced this fully, but I have had hints. Actually, I think it's not right to separate God from the "ordinary world" = God IS the ordinary world, and all the other worlds too.
(Ain't it funny that we always speak of the "ordinary world" or of "daily life" as if they were "special" worlds or "undaily" lives ?? Anyway ...)

I just feel I suffocate in the concept of a world where only the visible - let's say what can be perceived by the senses - is considered real.
And so I searched for a wider perspective, a deeper ... sense (ha ha). I'm not escaping reality, I'm trying to integrate it in a bigger frame, a meaningful context. And that is why I'm not very interested in the "limited" world of everyday perception. That one I know, it's okay but it's not enough. I mean, my perception of if does not satisfy me. It's like one small bite of a huge meal when one is very hungry. Could never be enough ! In this larger frame, even the so-called bad is not a problem no more. Meaning, it gets its role - which in my eyes is temporary, and then it will go (at last - Thank God !)

Er ... I'm still a bit dizzy from the flu, and this is very long already. So I hope it's all right if I finish here for the moment, not without adding some ... dreamery to this message (especially for Alladin and Ciel I guess ... Thanks !) - two pieces even, oops I hope it's ok.
Bye bye everyone,
till soon I hope.

Dominique


Some People Already Live the Future

Enclosed in a veil of love,
patiently healing ignorance around them,
those who have left suffering behind,
who know that the real nature of the world is bliss,
are glorious mutants of the spirit,
and giving to others the perspective of an absolute happiness,
a forever divine peace in a soul of joy,
they shine like sideral suns in our earthly landscape,
a gift come near from the velvet spheres of Truth
Some people already live the future,
bringing down all the blessings we dream of,
loosening the ties that keep us from freedom,
making all pain obsolete,
and showing us that life is a dream of love
encrypted in a reality even greater than thoughts can fathom
Sooner than maybe seems,
this awareness will sweep the Earth,
and many more of us will enter this state of wonder
and magistrally start living the magic of the Future


The God of a Thousand People

Beyond this universe, there are worlds peopled by God
In so many forms, we forget who we are
How to cling to one identity,
when all around us shines the brightness of otherness
The rich abundance of diversity defies the imagination
And behind this tapestry of love, not hidden but discreet,
one being lives its lone existence almost as an entity left behind
by happy night revellers on the edge of a new day
Alone among the remains of the party that is life,
it looks above the roofs of the world
in a silent conversation with itself
"I am nothing but a wish", it whispers
"My whole reality is this : that one day ... awareness will sweep
all the continents of all the universes, and I will be discovered
by everyone ... Now I am the God of a Thousand People, but soon how I
wish everyone, in every life form, will realize they are the precious
divine embodiment of God itself
All without exception
Then only I will start living
who I really am"

********

[Blue]

May I venture to suggest you harbour a grudge?
=============
I hardly follow this point to any logical conclusion in Post 13.

If a grudge, against what?

As to claiming we live in world without Aesthetic standards and agreed judgements that have persisted for many a long year... that is nonsense.

It seems to be being suggested everyone's personal and affective judgements are the determinant of 'judgement' relating to the domain beyond self, relevant to something external to themselves. That too is not valid.
If we were to simply assume everyone's personal liking or disliking was the sole method of judgement for everyone... there would never be consensus!

The reason why great Art crosses cultural boundaries; in literature, even through translation, is that there IS CONSENSUS in matters aesthetic!

The fact is anyone can respond affectively to a work of art in any medium, in any way they please, and that is one thing.

We can also apply aesthetic agreed measures that endure from generation to generation outside of ourselves and our personal affective responses and personal preferences. This is why a 'Shakespeare' passes the tests, a ceiling by M.Angelo passes the tests, and the works of a Picasso. I do NOT have to be able to say 'I like...' any particular work of Art, or artist, in order for it have the status of agreed aesthetic judgements beyond self from others that patently objectively show its worth as a work of Art.

In poetry, we have such varied 'peeps' as Chaucer right through to a Dylan Thomas AND a T.S.Eliot or an e.e.cummings. You may not personally like or enjoy the effusions of a Dylan Thomas, but his undoubted poeticism is undeniable on the basis of aesthetic measures. If I don't like Thomas, that's one thing, but it doesn't stop me recognising he passes the 'tests'.... and was undoubtedly an individual genius in his chosen genre.

Being popular or not, known or not, at/in their own time doesn't come into it. Some were recognised in their time, others weren't. That's just a fact. There must have been many, (and are) many unrecognised great works of Art in all media, and artists..., they are simply 'not-known'. Not only that, there are works of 'good' art that we do not know the origin of... let alone knowledge of the artist.
Look at the cave paintings in France from ancient times. The execution, the artistic merit, the skill; each is immediately perceiveable. The animals give a sense of movement, the human beings depicted on the hunt, equally so... for whatever purpose, or by whom they were painted matters not one jot when it comes to such aesthetic judgements... they pass aesthetic judgements made irrespective of whether we personally like them or not.

May I suggest that basing overall judgements entirely in personal affective responses is not wise, anymore than it is wise to fall in love without reason playing a part in any practical decisions... love can be blind! And that is not a 'wise' state to be in, however glorious it might seem for a time!

My point in all this is to agree with the post referring to the 'cooling' of personal comments. Where I may have said above 'you' are preferring personal affective responses in an ad hoc fashion, I am merely saying and pointing out that is what 'you' are appearing to argue as a 'reason'. As above, I would argue otherwise and declare always that affective judgements demand a balance with reason and rationality, and objectivity. I am not simply declaring that personal affective responses have no validity... they do... a personal validity that needs always to be respected. Just don't let such affective responses govern - or blind - anyone to judgements that have applications beyond self in agreed aesthetic standards.

Further, great art unites, in my opinion, the emotional and the rational, and people, and that is its true strength. One without the other, does not produce great Art, or even 'good' art, it encourages the 'bad' or is the 'bad'...
I would not say that Tracey Emin's bed is a great work of art simply because it produces x, y, or z's affective responses. A measure/dose of rationality and reason dictates that ephemeral modernism, lacking skill and spirit, is symptomatic of our age, but it is not great Art... but a Barbara Hepworth's sculpture is.

A row of bricks in an art gallery instead of a bulding site, is not great Art, whatever the money markets in the 'business' of Art, and the hangers-on may argue and say... not just because I say so, but because they don't measure up against a consensus of aesthetic judgements over centuries, which these modernists often ignore.

[Virtual_Cliff]

Dear Blue,

re: the "grudge" reference - please see my earlier apology, and ignore. I am slightly torn here, because the examples of artists and poets you give are ones that I do like,whether or not that is important. Equally I fail to find anything to recommend Emin's bed. But that is only my point of view, and it would be disingenuous of me to claim scientific backing for it. Remember Whistler's painting was described as "flinging paint in the face of the public". The impressionists were derided. Van Gogh couldn't sell a painting to save his life. Modern artists of the 20th cenrury were mostly ignored for a long time, in favour of pedantic second-rate pretentious sentimental tosh. Jack Vettriani out-sells every other living artist. e e cummings, a great favourite of mine, is not widely known in the way that Ted Hughes is.

Rather, it seems to work the other way. We rationalise the opinions we have already formed irrationally. Ask any articulate person why they like something and they will be able to give convincing answers. When their tastes change, their reasons follow.

Nonetheless I quite agree that the spiritual and the material need to be kept in balance, but I see them as two different realms. Moreover it seems to me that scientific materialism is being hailed as - not just more important - but the *only* proper way to describe the universe, in the same way that it is now said that the only reason people want education is to get better jobs. This is a tawdry devalued outlook on life. This is better -

that blessed mood,
In which the burthen of the mystery,
In which the heavy and the weary weight
Of all this unintelligible world,
Is lightened:--that serene and blessed mood,
In which the affections gently lead us on,--
Until, the breath of this corporeal frame
And even the motion of our human blood
Almost suspended, we are laid asleep
In body, and become a living soul:
While with an eye made quiet by the power
Of harmony, and the deep power of joy,
We see into the life of things.

Wordsworth

[Virtual_Cliff]

I might add another few lines of Wordsworth:

our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things
We murder to dissect.

[Blue]

I thought, VC, that I indicated acceptance of the apology before... lol
Forget about it. Those things do not worry me.

Regarding your comments... you seem to be still setting up personal 'taste' as the arbiter of artistic value judgements.

That's fine... but it is patently limited in my opinion, so I have tried to argue that.

You mention people/artists, and quote one of my personal favourites, WW, but I do have to point out that WW did suffer from the recognised condition of hyperaesthesia... and I do not object at all to him saying he can hear the 'rocks and stones and trees'.

I would have to agree that some of the so-called 'official' critics who denigrate Jack Vettriani are equally in need of experience and even training in aesthetics! If he had severely broken with aesthetic conventions, he certainly wouldn't be so universally popular.

He is a person who seems to me to stick ot the 'rules' very well, and his skill (art) is undeniable. I don't, like some might do, claim all his works are 'great art'..., but there are many that do qualify aesthetically as 'good' art.

I also must make comment on this:
"Equally I fail to find anything to recommend Emin's bed. But that is only my point of view, and it would be disingenuous of me to claim scientific backing for it."... which seems to make my point that you seem to fall back on the matter of personal taste at all times.

Firstly, the work fails on judgements of skill and aesthetics, and
Secondly, that is not a 'scientific' concern! What on earth has science to do with this particular presumed 'work of art'?

You seem to still think that
a) I reject personal taste, and
b) I am denigrating those who judge purely in terms of personal taste... that is just a choice and matter for them to decide.

All I am saying is, that is not the whole 'story'... I repeat again, there is nothing to stop me 'disliking' from a personal taste POV, a great work of Art in any medium. Similarly, there is nothing to stop me liking, from a personal POV, trash - as adjudged by an apparent majority! Therein lies the problem.

I do not require/ people to 'like' my own paintings, but at least I wish them to recognise aesthetic qualities in them such as my skills can create and demonstrate. The same goes for my poetry, short stories and novels.

As I mentioned before, purely in aesthetic judgements, the French Cave Paintings are universally adjudged as 'amazing'. There is nothing to stop me saying that they are NOT to my TASTE... as well as appreciating their execution and skill aesthetically.

In brief... when there is judgement embodying both personal taste and firm aesthetic judgements, based in recognised and universal appeal and acceptance the world over, I am happiest!

Tracey Emin's bed fails the latter judgements! (Whether I like her bed or not.)

--- and of course, I did make the important point that recognition is not an important concern... I am firmly of the opinion that there are many undiscovered artists in any medium, as there were when Van Gogh couldn't sell a picture... strange isn't it, that I am certain I would have bought one, if I had been around at the time.

Those who simply follow fashions in personal taste, I would condemn almost out of hand!

Seasonal greetings... may they include peace and happiness.

[Blue]

I feel the need to make a further comment about:
"our meddling intellect
Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things
We murder to dissect."

Wordsworth was clearly ("murder") making the point that deconstruction and rational and logical enquiries are not appropriate to the 'beauteous forms of things".

Yes... I am saying that is not the whole 'story'!

I would say that 'our meddling intellect' CAN mis-shape our appreciation of the forms of things in all artistic media, but that is not the same as saying it always does, which WW seems to be implying.

I feel very protective of WW, because I was only in my twenties when I did a full dissertation (paper) on theComplete works of WW as part of further graduate studies.

[aladdin]

Thank you Dominique for posting your poetry again. It is very prophetic and full of rich meaning and depth.

Blue----First off, on Aesthetics (quite ironically I am an Aesthetician, not in the sense you mean though)

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpag...1576304#endads

Where exactly can we become educated about this universal definition of aesthetics you keep referring to?

I hate to use this woman as an example, but Marilyn "Vos Savant" has stated she think's Pablo Picasso is absolute trash and anyone who likes him is an idiot. (which upset me since it is art...)


On a side note, this is probably not the appropriate place to post this, what does anyone think of this?
Body and Soul

All Bibles or sacred codes have been the causes of the following Errors:

1. That Man has two real existing principles: Viz: a Body & a Soul.
   
   
2. That Energy, call'd Evil, is alone from the Body; & that Reason, call'd Good, is alone from the Soul.
   
   
3. That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies.
   

But the following Contraries to these are True:

1. Man has no Body distinct from his Soul; for that call'd Body is a portion of the Soul discern'd by the five Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age.
   
   
2. Energy is the only life, and is from the Body; and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.
   
   
3. Energy is Eternal Delight.
   

I just came across this in a mathematics book I was reading

[Virtual_Cliff]

There seems to be one sticking point here, so let's nail it or forget it. Blue keeps to referring to a "universal consensus" as distinct from changing tastes. I am saying that every time people think there is a universal consensus, it turns out to be a temporary fad, and we must conclude that there is no universal aesthetic. Rules can be drawn up by one person, and different rules by another. Who is to decide which is right?

Jack Vettriani perfectly demonstrates that brilliantly executed tosh is still tosh.

I recommend to Dominique the central portion of the WW poem I quoted: "and I have felt a sense sublime of something far more deeply interfused... whose dwelling is the light of setting suns and the round ocean and the living air and in the mind of man... a motion and a spirit that impells all thinking things, all objects of all thought and rolls through all things"... (Sorry about the crude rendition, Blue, but that's from memory.) I am with you Dominique, there must be more than the measurable, something we can sense in our souls, which is not accessible to our physical selves.

[Blue]

VC

Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy, at least as old as Plato, that studies beauty and taste, including their specific manifestations in the tragic, the comic, and the sublime. Its central issues include questions about the origin and status of aesthetic judgments: are they objective statements about genuine features of the world or purely subjective expressions of personal attitudes; should they include any reference to the intentions of artists or the reactions of patrons; and how are they related to judgments of moral value? More specifically, aesthetics considers each of these issues as they arise for various arts, including art, architecture, painting, sculpture, music, dance, theatre, and literature. Aesthetics is a significant component of the philosophical work of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Santayana.

Of course art appreciation is in the eyes of the beholder, although there are certain elements that we can define across a group of paintings, for example, that can be generalized or delineated, and hence discussed and analyzed on their own merits.

Generally, visual art adheres to the aesthetic principles of symmetry/asymmetry, focal point, pattern, contrast, perspective, 3D dimensionality, movement, rhythm, unity/Gestalt, and proportion.

You can't simply, I agree, take a sample of artwork, lay it down, critique it across aesthetic dimensions, and reach some kind of quantitative judgement as to its quality. Great paintings touch our souls; they may violate some guidelines, which I pointed out before, or lend different weights to various aesthetic principles (sometimes a piece of art veers violently from an aesthetic principle specifically for effect; the "anti-art" Dadaist movement deliberately violated as many artistic principles as possible). Yet the principle of aesthetics gives us a basis for discussion and final judgement.

While this concensus that aesthetics gives a basis for the discussions is essential, the fact that judgements related solely to personal affective responses can be claimed as the 'all' is a fault! In the appeal to the greatest number, through personal responses and aesthetic considerations, there is the appellation of 'great Art'. I do not have to like Picasso, to recognise the qualities of his artistic skills, etc.

Some as yourself seem to believe that personal affective response is the arbiter... in fact it can never be....this would mean as it does in much critical wriitng today that anybody's artistic judgement is as good as another's. It isn't, if you don't make aesthetics part of your judgements.

The fact is that stirring the human soul seems to follow aesthetic criteria appreciated from the days of ancient Greece to today- that taste is pre-eminent over personal preference.

ART is primarily skill in the medium... be it paint or music, or architecture,or literature,etc.

You seem to have ignored in your response to my last something I emphasised... that it has to be appreciated that my personal preferences can tell me I do not like this picture or that, this sculpture or that... and that has no bearing on judgements about whether the picture or sculpture is good or bad art.

I can perfectly well LIKE bad art, and LOATHE good art. recognising the worth of the work is very important.

You sound the sort of person who will accept anything so long as you personally find it artistically satisfying.... WELL... that is fine, BUT you have to recognise that what you regard as satisfying, etc., actually can be shown to follow or not follow aesthetic principles that unify views of M. Angelo's work and Picasso's.

As I have written above:
"Great paintings touch our souls; they may violate some guidelines," etc.

How does a particular work 'stir your soul', VC? How does it follow the aesthetic principles of symmetry/asymmetry, focal point, pattern, contrast, perspective, 3D dimensionality, movement, rhythm, unity/Gestalt, and proportion.

Are you going to simply ignore such concerns and be simply happy disliking a particular work of Vettriani, or do you unkindly lump them, all his works together as 'tosh'?

You see, I am not discusssing whether or not you LIKE Vettriani's work, or if I like it... we are looking for other concerns too... the skill and artistry in the performance, and the fact that some of his works satisfy and 'stir' something in people's souls.

As to your views of WW, again you seem to think he is somehow beyond criticism... the fact is that many of his more maudling pieces were found to be rather boring by audiences then and are now, being squarely placed in an hyperaesthesia of the senses, that is not very rational to say the least, but glorifies the irrational.

In itself, believing one hear rocks and stones and trees is harmless... but to build upon that with poetic declarations that are religious in nature is proof of the irrationality of the 'message' in any world beyond the poetic. The audience,quite deliberately is invited to share in the vision... which again, is fine! But.... does CONTENT, FORM, etc., literary aesthetics never play a part in your judgements?

Finally,the quote you offer Dominique proves my point:

"and I have felt a sense sublime of something far more deeply interfused... whose dwelling is the light of setting suns and the round ocean and the living air and in the mind of man... a motion and a spirit that impells all thinking things, all objects of all thought and rolls through all things"...

There is no 'spirit' that impels... if there is, pleasegive the evidence.

These are the irrational and poetic ramblings I refer to. They are beautifully expressed, but ultimately represent a mystical and metaphysical view of the real world that is just not so.
The quote shows simply how WW reacted affectively through his affective nature and nurture... for us to enjoy, ponder on --- AND approach critically with reason.

Mystics and those of religiosity often claim a 'sense of the sublime'. BUT, so what? That can be achieved via LSD and other hallucinogenics - even alcohol, or even self flagellation. It is actually an affective state of an individual. It has no meaning in reality beyond self. It does not relate to the domain beyond self, the material and cognitive domain, except through 'declaration' and 'affirmation'. Accepted in these terms, we either see this as 'soul stirring' or we do not... and that has nothing to do with aesthetic judgements that should be applied to the poem, painting, piece of music or whatever.

A viewing of a baby in a pram can stir one's soul. So? A trip through the Alps can do the same.

He says the sense of the sublime IS in the light of setting suns... but it isn't. It is only in the affective nature of a supremely sensitive man with hyperaesthesia, gifted with skills, the facility for, language, and he attempts to convey his affective vision to us... and I will leave you to decide for what purpose or reason.

Remember M.Angelo worked on commissions - for money! Also read some of the letters, conversations between WW and Coleridge, and Dorothy'sconcerns..

[Blue]

VC
As I seem to have concentrated upon the visual, here are some aesthetic considerations for poetry, etc., beyond primary considerations of form and techniques:
In literary aesthetics the study of affect, for example, creates an awareness of the deep structures of reading and receiving literary works. Affect refers to the emotional sense created in the reader or receiver of a literary work. These affects may be broadly grouped by their mode of writing, and relationship the reader assumes with time. Catharsis is the affect of dramatic completition of action in time. Kairosis is the affect of novels whose characters become integrated in time. Kenosis is the affect of lyric poetry which creates a sense of emptiness and timelessness.

Are you simply going to say, 'I like this poem of Wordsworth, because it gives me a sense of the sublime in myself.' or 'I hate that novel 'Clockwork Orange', because it is tasteless.'?

That is what people say when they are either blind or intolerant of other opinions and aesthetic considerations. They just use their own affective nature and nurture to make judgements, without reason, as we all probably do in the instant... but then they take it no further...

That in my humble opinion is - sad.

'Good taste' could be 'good' or 'bad'... and that's a fact, if all it depends upon is the personal and affective nature of the speaker/writer.
=======
I just do not understand how you can dismiss the skills and all the works of a painter like Vettriani as 'tosh'.
That would be like saying, I dismiss all the works of a van Gogh, when he was around, simply because I think they are 'tosh'.
Try forgetting your personal prejudices, the received opinions of modern critics, and see where you end up. To dismiss his work as sentimental, for example, by judgement of some of them, may be your personal preference, but if so, I would ask you to consider the 'darker' works, and above all 'think' again.

[Virtual_Cliff]

This is a quick response though I would like to come back and expand it later.

Yes I am quite opinionated on some issues, although I can be and have been persuaded that I was wrong, and I'm happy with that. I will defend my opinions, but I will never state that they are right, and everyone else is wrong.

Rules, such as the rules of aesthetics (of which I know nothing) are a useful standard and enable dialogue on mutually understood terms between different people. This also applies to morality. Moral anarchy would be a disaster - civilisation depends on certain shared values; but it also depends on tolerance; values can and must change to stay alive. We should all respect the law of the land, but sometimes the law is wrong and must be changed. Yesterday's outlaws are sometimes tomorrow's vanguard.

No amount of respect for the law can lead you to love your country. Knowing the rules of football can't make you a good player. Knowing the rules of aesthetics won't make you a good artist. Keeping to the Ten Commandments or the Torah won't make you love God. The skill of the artist helps us to appreciate what (s)he is saying, but if that is not worth saying then the effort is wasted.

You will find millions of people throughout the ages have attested to "the sense sublime of something far more deeply interfused", including myself. But in order to sense it one needs to be open to the possibility. Many known phenomena are unexplained: telepathy, photographic memory, human computers, remote viewing, to name but a few. I think that the next great advance of the human race will come from knowing the limitations of scientific method.

[Blue]

VC,
You say:
"You will find millions of people throughout the ages have attested to "the sense sublime of something far more deeply interfused", including myself. But in order to sense it one needs to be open to the possibility. Many known phenomena are unexplained: telepathy, photographic memory, human computers, remote viewing, to name but a few. I think that the next great advance of the human race will come from knowing the limitations of scientific method."

Why do you on the one hand uphold problems with a concept of 'consensus' in these concerns and then illustrate the basis of that 'consensus'? ("millions... throughout the ages"?)
Questioning and denying to see rational explanations for what you cite is hardly encouraged when you admit the basis I have cited.
Aesthetics is concerned with the phenomena you cite.
What more can I say?
As to the conclusion of 'science', that in some (mystical?) way you say has limitations in its methodology, I think you are just proving to us all that you do not understand scientific methodology.
Neither do I understand the citations you choose, or their relevance:
telepathy? photographic memory? Human computers? (Do you mean the introduction of living material into electronic computer interfaces, or the actual use of organic matter as part of the computer's chip configuration?), Remote viewing?

Are these all not under investigation by the 'Sciences'? Have not most of them been investigated? You say they are unexplained. Let us assume they are not, as you have stated.
If so... why presume some metaphysical and - forgive me - 'romantic' - explanation is possible? Why not be satisfied that scientific methodology investigates such phenomena as 'unknowns' to be investigated? Why, further assume, that other mystical methodolgies are preferable? What logical basis have you for that assumption? Can you not accept simply that x) is an unknown, worthy of objective investigation?

When recently another new tribe was discovered by loggers in South America, the tribe saw someone use a cigarette lighter... and thought it was magical... a device of the Gods? Does that actually make the cigarette lighter 'magical' and an 'instrument' of the aliens or the Gods, or whatever... a device of magic and the supernatural?

NO...and nor do the cited examples illustrate anything mystical and magical. They are simply identified with logical, objective problems that are in need of further investigation and understanding. They are 'unknowns'.
In fact we know more about the cited examples than you seem to think!

In scientific methodology, our understandings and knowledge is always limited to the current understandings and knowledge. That is then applied to the unknowns... the problems: seeking always to push back the barriers to understanding of the unknowns, if necessary, with new approaches, new investigations.

If string theory is be proven... we seek ways of proving it... we seek analysis of the problems. In fact, with regard to the latter, new observations have discovered possible validations in astronomical evidence, as reported this week in 'The New Scientist' magazine and on the Web.

Science makes hypotheses and seeks ways of investigating them, either validating them ultimately, or not as the case may be... and that is all.

The thing about 'Science' is that it is very aware of its limitations.... Those supporting a supernatural, metaphysical conceptualisation seem not to have a problem with their own limitations, or even to be aware of the problems and limitations of their views!

They say things like if it is 'unknown' therefore it must be 'evidence for a God', or some equally supernatural, surreal explanation.

On a personal note... you say:
"I will defend my opinions, but I will never state that they are right, and everyone else is wrong."

I would expect no other from you VC. BUT please note, you have said they are 'opinions'. That means exactly what I have been saying. Opinions are just opinions, objective and material facts are not... they reference themselves to what is objectively amenable to investigation beyond 'opinion' and self, and how one 'feels' about something.

That returns me to the evidence you cite... the millions who recognise aesthetic qualities at work in what they appreciate... qualities that can be examined and defined... as I have posted for you Re: visual Arts and literary Arts.
When those 'conventions' are broken deliberately, as in Dadaism, it is CLEAR that they are being broken - for a deliberate purpose.

If a sublime feeling is an aspect of any particular work of Art in the minds of a general audience over time... that needs confirmation and explanation to be understood, especially if you are an artist who wishes to 'move' an audience, and deliberately wishes the audience to be 'moved'. This is the essential and original meaning of 'skill' in the denotative definition of 'art'.

No one is suggesting that a primitive artist cannot by accident, or simply undefined affective undertandings, achieve great 'art'. They patently can and have throughout History. I once had a photograph win a local exhibiton competition and heard the 'judge' rabbittinbg on about how a sensitive choice was made for the composition,etc., etc. For heaven's sake... that photo was an accident among a number of frames! It was not composed or captured deliberately! I simply recognised its aesthetic qulaities... and so did the 'judges' and the audiences in general!
Similarly,the converse is true... an artist who strives to implement all the aesthetic understandings, may abysmally fail to finally 'move' audiences as large as you suggest, because his 'Art' is robotic and unfeeling! You seem to think I would deny that latter scenario!

Personal tastes, both refined and unrefined, are not the primary/sole arbiters of 'good' art.
Good art stands alone... and is either recognised or not, aethetically, as having the qualities that can be demonstrated by a Vettriani in some of his works.

A viewer just making personal judgements is likely to miss what could enhance appreciation and make judgements more enlightened. In fact, that happens all the time.

I repeat, yet again... there is no necessity in us to like that which can be seen to have good qualities.. good art. Nor is there any inbuilt necessity that says we have to dislike 'bad' art... we may in fact be very moved by it...
So what? That's what it means to judge purely from a personal taste POV.
If you cannot distinguish the aesthetic qualities, no one is saying you are 'bad' or 'wrong'. No one is saying you are 'wrong' if you make all your judgements on a purely personal basis. You just would not understand Dadaist 'art', that's all, and be able to recognise it for what it is.

Personal taste is not the arbiter... the millions you refer to are... for it is they who have been communicated with through the skills of the artist, across generations.

You did seem to imply that I personally do not appreciate that 'sense of the sublime'. You would be wrong. I recognise it for what it is... and a little of how it works... or how I try to make it work in my paintings, poems and other creative literature.

An artist needs to learn his or her 'craft', as many old masters did at the feet of their literal 'masters'. ~Some then continuing to achieve great mastery beyond that of their teachers. When those 'masters' made judgements about their apprentices, they sometimes made mistakes, or were jealous,or nurtured what they recognised was greater skill than their own... and probably very different in style, but they very rarely demonstrated lack of appreciation of the aestheic qualities... as I say - only sometimes making a blatant mistake.

You can 'see' an unmade bed any way you want... from a personal view. Aesthetics tell me it demonstrates no 'craft'/skill, or communicates any sense of the sublime... the artist in that case maintaining that the audience MUST make of it what they will! All it displays to me is a lack of skill and a lack of taste, with a scarcely justifiable political intent on the part of the 'artist', somewhat typical of the lack of taste and discrimination of age in which we live.

[Blue]

May I say how much I am enjoying this debate, and wish you a peaceful, safe and happy Christmas!

[Virtual_Cliff]

Thank you Blue. I was about to say the same to you. I shall reply to your excellent questions as soon as I can.

Yours, in peace,
VC

[aladdin]

Did anyone read the link I posted? If yes, Do you disagree with encarta's definition of aesthetics or did I misunderstand something? People still seem to limit themselves to certain ancient greek idea's of reason in art? <<and santanya?>>I am going to just post this definition. I still want to understand Blue's understanding of aesthetics and why reason is so valuable.
*****
Aesthetics, branch of philosophy concerned with the essence and perception of beauty and ugliness. Aesthetics also deals with the question of whether such qualities are objectively present in the things they appear to qualify, or whether they exist only in the mind of the individual; (((So this is THE individual correct, or all individuals on average?))))) hence, whether objects are perceived by a particular mode, the aesthetic mode, or whether instead the objects have, in themselves, special qualities—aesthetic qualities. *Did anyone see this, am I missing something?
Philosophy also asks if there is a difference between the beautiful and the sublime.
Criticism and the psychology of art, although independent disciplines, are related to aesthetics. The psychology of art is concerned with such elements of the arts as human responses to color, sound, line, form, and words and with the ways in which the emotions condition such responses. Criticism confines itself to particular works of art, analyzing their structures, meanings, and problems, comparing them with other works, and evaluating them.

The term aesthetics was introduced in 1753 by the German philosopher Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten, but the study of the nature of beauty had been pursued for centuries. In the past it was chiefly a subject for philosophers. Since the 19th century, artists also have contributed their views.

IIClassical TheoriesPrint Preview of SectionThe first aesthetic theory of any scope is that of Plato, who believed that reality consists of archetypes, or forms, beyond human sensation, which are the models for all things that exist in human experience. The objects of such experience are examples, or imitations, of those forms. The philosopher tries to reason from the object experienced to the reality it imitates; the artist copies the experienced object, or uses it as a model for the work. Thus, the artist's work is an imitation of an imitation.

Plato's thinking had a marked ascetic strain. In his Republic, Plato went so far as to banish some types of artists from his ideal society because he thought their work encouraged immorality or portrayed base characters, and that certain musical compositions caused laziness or incited people to immoderate actions.

Aristotle also spoke of art as imitation, but not in the Platonic sense. One could imitate “things as they ought to be,” he wrote, and “art partly completes what nature cannot bring to a finish.” The artist separates the form from the matter of some objects of experience, such as the human body or a tree, and imposes that form on another matter, such as canvas or marble. Thus, imitation is not just copying an original model, nor is it devising a symbol for the original; rather, it is a particular representation of an aspect of things, and each work is an imitation of the universal whole.

Aesthetics was inseparable from morality and politics for both Aristotle and Plato. The former wrote about music in his Politics, maintaining that art affects human character, and hence the social order. Because Aristotle held that happiness is the aim of life, he believed that the major function of art is to provide human satisfaction. In the Poetics, his great work on the principles of drama, Aristotle argued that tragedy so stimulates the emotions of pity and fear, which he considered morbid and unhealthful, that by the end of the play the spectator is purged of them. This catharsis makes the audience psychologically healthier and thus more capable of happiness. Neoclassical drama since the 17th century has been greatly influenced by Aristotle's Poetics. The works of the French dramatists Jean Baptiste Racine, Pierre Corneille, and Molière, in particular, advocate its doctrine of the three unities: time, place, and action. This concept dominated literary theories up to the 19th century.

IIIOther Early ApproachesPrint Preview of SectionThe 3rd-century philosopher Plotinus, born in Egypt and trained in philosophy at Alexandria, although a Neoplatonist, gave far more importance to art than did Plato. In Plotinus's view, art reveals the form of an object more clearly than ordinary experience does, and it raises the soul to contemplation of the universal. According to Plotinus, the highest moments of life are mystical, which is to say that the soul is united, in the world of forms, with the divine, which Plotinus spoke of as “the One.” Aesthetic experience comes closest to mystical experience, for one loses oneself while contemplating the aesthetic object.

Art in the Middle Ages was primarily an expression of religion, with an aesthetic principle based largely on Neoplatonism. During the Renaissance in the 15th and 16th centuries, art became more secular, and its aesthetics were classical rather than religious. The great impetus to aesthetic thought in the modern world occurred in Germany during the 18th century. The German critic Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, in his Laokoon (1766), argued that art is self-limiting and reaches its height only when these limitations are recognized. The German critic and classical archaeologist Johann Joachim Winckelmann maintained that, in accordance with the ancient Greeks, the best art is impersonal, expressing ideal proportion and balance rather than its creator's individuality. The German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte considered beauty a moral virtue. The artist creates a world in which beauty, as much as truth, is an end, foreshadowing that absolute freedom which is the goal of the human will. For Fichte, art is individual, not social, but it fulfills a great human purpose.

IVModern AestheticsPrint Preview of SectionThe 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant was concerned with judgments of taste. Objects are judged beautiful, he proposed, when they satisfy a disinterested desire: one that does not involve personal interests or needs. It follows from this that beautiful objects have no specific purpose and that judgments of beauty are not expressions of mere personal preference but are universal. Although one cannot be certain that others will be satisfied by objects he or she judges to be beautiful, one can at least say that others ought to be satisfied. The basis for one's response to beauty exists in the structure of one's mind.

<<<<>>>>>>I deleted the middle it is too long!!!.

In>>>>
AMarxism and FreudianismTwo powerful movements, Marxism in the fields of economics and politics and Freudianism in psychology, have rejected the art-for-art principle and reasserted art's practical uses. Marxism treats art as an expression of the underlying economic relations in society. Marxist proponents maintain that art is great only when it is “progressive,” that is, when it supports the cause of the society under which it is created.

Sigmund Freud believed the value of art to lie in its therapeutic use: It is by this means that both the artist and the public can reveal hidden conflicts and discharge tensions. Fantasies and daydreams, as they enter into art, are thus transformed from an escape from life into ways of meeting it. In the surrealist movement in painting and poetry, the unconscious is used as a source of material. The stream-of-consciousness technique of fiction, notably in the novels of the Irish writer James Joyce, was derived not only from Freud's work but partly from The Principles of Psychology (1890) by the American philosopher and psychologist William James and partly from the French novel We'll to the Woods No More (1887; translated 1957) by Edouard Dujardin.

BExistentialismMore recently, the French philosopher and writer Jean-Paul Sartre advocated a form of existentialism in which art is seen as an expression of the freedom of the individual to choose, and as such demonstrates the individual's responsibility for his or her choices. Despair, as reflected in art, is not an end but a beginning, because it eradicates the guilts and excuses from which people ordinarily suffer, thus opening the way for genuine freedom.

CAcademic ControversiesAcademic controversies of the 20th century have revolved about meaning in art. The British critic and semanticist I. A. Richards claimed that art is a language. He asserted that two types of language exist: the symbolic, which conveys ideas and information; and the emotive, which expresses, evokes, and excites feelings and attitudes. He regarded art as emotive language, giving order and coherence to experience and attitudes, but containing no symbolic meaning.

Richards's work was important also for its use of psychological techniques in studying aesthetic reactions. In Practical Criticism (1929) he described experiments revealing that even highly educated people are conditioned by their education, by handed-down opinion, and by other social and circumstantial elements in their aesthetic responses. Other writers have commented on the conditioning effects of tradition, fashion, and other social pressures, noting, for example, that in the early 18th century the plays of William Shakespeare were viewed as barbarous and Gothic art as vulgar.

you say has limitations in its methodology, I think you are just proving to us all that you do not understand scientific methodology

Niehls Bohr has said "The map is not the territory." See debates between Einstein and Bohr

You just would not understand Dadaist 'art', that's all, and be able to recognise it for what it is.

You might be right, I probably could look ad Dadaist art and not realize its purpose is to make some nihilistic or nietzschean if you will, statement against certain laws of Beauty,. I mean maybe I will pick up on something their psyche was trying to express that they were not consciously utilizing as part of the ""Dadaist" motif . Or maybe I will pick up on some other meaning in it only I can see or pick up on it