This first section stimulated a lot of thoughts for me. I was particularly intrigued by the concept of Subjective Universality. Why is it because one person finds something to be a certain way, whether it is beautiful, enjoyable, or awful, it can be found beautiful to all? Is this thing really beautiful, or are we all in agreement that it fits an aesthetic, thus suggesting anything else would be asinine.
This all circles back to the concept of taste. I liked the author’s inquiry that there are three levels of taste: agreeable, beautiful, and good. “Agreeable” is the first, least structured level of taste. It is intent on an enjoyable experience. This would fall under the category of “just for fun!” The author questions if something “agreeable” even counts as an aesthetic experience at all. An example that I can think of for something in my routine that is agreeable would be watching “Friends” while I get ready for school as background noise. It does not provide any sort of inspiration to me, nor does it do any harm. The next level the author identified is “beautiful”. Something falling in the realm of beautiful invokes pleasure but not in as fun of a capacity as something “agreeable”. Beauty is an aesthetic experience and it fulfills an impulse that is higher than a neutral sensuous experience. The final level is “good”. This is the most exclusive standard, so to speak. This level was the most interesting to me. One point the author brought up that perplexed me was that if everyone has their standards for what “good” taste is, is there even such a thing as “good” taste at all? Something that is “good” is supposed to inspire admiration and respect, but, as humans, don’t we draw inspiration from varying places? What’s considered to be “good” to me may be completely polar to what is “good” to you or the next person. So if what is “good” is really determined by our individual standards, then there really is no standard. But this does not sit well with us. It is in our nature for there to be things of superior nature, of higher standard. It is how we define class. If we have no standard then we would all be equal. Perhaps this would solve our problems. Another pattern that I noticed in the reading was the use of the word “tautological” or variations of it. This word essentially means saying the same thing twice but using different words. I found this ironic considering this is essentially what the author does throughout his work. He repeatedly reworded the same rhetorical questions, and he continuously went off on tangents. I was fascinated by this word and the irony of it’s repeated presence. This was particularly prominent in the second chapter, which highlighted the author’s inner monologue. He would also often refer back to anecdotal characteristics from his childhood. This reading, to me, was as much about tackling greater philosophical questions as it was becoming acquainted with the author. This book raised a lot of questions regarding the role that art plays in modern day. Art evokes emotion by crossing cultural norms and bounds. But the act of going to an art museum speaks to the development, or rather depleting, ability of humans to foster connections. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2019
Categories |