The aesthetics fraud

To prepare this talk, I opened the Petit Robert, and I read, at the entry ?aesthetic? and the beginning of the following definition: ?science of beauty ?? I immediately stopped my reading, because only in these three words make clear enough the imposture of Aesthetics, which I believe, for my part, as the false science of a false object. False object, because what we call ?beauty? is absolutely scientifically unsuitable: we speaks of a beautiful poem, a beautiful car, a nice gesture, a beautiful sunset, etc. This does not mean at all that there is no reflection on what is beautiful, but today I reject the consideration of this issue to speak only of the aesthetics as false science. Why a false science? Simply because aesthetics explains nothing just as arts. We immediately returned to the question: what is it to explain? And it is this question that I will start by answering. You may know that there are two main explanatory perspectives: to explain it always returns to a phenomenon in principle, but principle -be careful here- is to be understood as a logically model and a chronologically contemporary antecedent phenomenon observed, either as an origin, a principle logically similar to the observed phenomenon, but chronologically earlier than him. I will immediately give you an example. Consider a bird perched on a branch. Suddenly, hop! He is gone. Well, the explanation is twofold. First explanation: why this bird has flown away? Because he heard the sound of a gunshot. Why has he heard a gunshot? Because Mr. Smith went out hunting. Why Mr. Smith has he gone hunting? Because he was fed up of his wife?s complains. (And you realize that we may well go back to the original domestic scene -this is the case to say! ?the one of Adam and Eve). Second explanation why the bird has flown away? Because he is capable of flight. Why is he capable of flight? Because he has wings. Why does he have wings? Because he must ensure sustenance in the air. Why should he sustain them in the air? Because, given the gravity and density of the air?etc? So, first, the explanation has a chronological priority from the origin explanation which is by the logical antecedent model. However, I will, first speak about art, the explanation by it origin. In a second time, I will talk about, in the same area of course, the explanation of model. And I will conclude by offering some thoughts. So, first, the explanation by it origin. What has given this explanation by origin in our faculties of letters? History of art. What that means, except that it only adds obscurity to another? Indeed, the history of art explains nothing, for two reasons. The first is that this discipline has been unable to distinguish art (singular) and styles (plural), as when we say: ?Roman style?, ?Gothic style,? ?Baroque style? etc. The second reason is that without having a proper theory of history that would clarify it, for example, concepts such as interaction, interference, influence, loan?it turns to the chronological catalog. You see that everything can be blamed for the History of Art, because it defines neither art nor history. This must be done! Knowing that it does not define anything, we understand that it is doomed to a totally useless encyclopedia. Similarly, if you open a ?History of Literature,? as large as it is, you will learn nothing about what some call the ?literariness? No more than if you open a ?History of Religions?? Look, I have a very good friend (she may be here tonight), who wants to read from beginning to end an enormous work of Mircea Eliade entitled History of beliefs and religious ideas. Obviously, she reached an age where these questions start to work on her! But then there! The book covers in two or three thousand pages, the whole world (I mean the whole world), since the ?Stone Age? to today. This is an erudite work: this guy knows everything! Absolutely everything! So I told her: ?But my poor dear, before you finish reading that thing, you are no longer of this world! Rather read one or two letters of Mother Teresa that have been translated into English?. Nothing to do. She objected me: ?I am learning?. And that is what I want! I bet my bottom dollar that she will never know what a belief or an idea is (religious or not, it does not matter here. ) Let us return to our business. What is, however, interesting in the schools of letters, is the training received by the ?art? students (that is relatively new). What does the expression, that the schools of letters have finally admitted that ?All the same, in art, there is a little technical, a little manipulation, it should not be forgotten,? etc. ? Under these conditions, you see that the existence of ?art? is a sign of repentance so that clears a few teachers of Art History and Aesthetics of teachers to neglect the art. And then they have to take into account at least a little of ?manipulations? to train those in my time we called drawing teachers. It is nevertheless true that training in art remains a poor relation, because as you all know, what matters in France at least, it is the bullshit. More you spiel, the more you climb of steps on Jacob?s ladder of grades and treatments! While down there (we almost forget!) there are the Artists. They are not very troubles because they do not know cause any. And it is true: the experience taught me. When I was a young adult, Aim

Related posts:

1. Physical Science Products: Learning about science in a hands-on environment! Hands-on science products are both fun for children and highly...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.