Aesthetics
Topic: General Theology
My brief and recent experience in aesthetics has proved frustrating. Its coherence as a discipline remains quite vague. Perhaps this is part of its inherent resistence to abstraction. I have worked out one image regarding beauty's relationship to aesthetics. Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.
Beauty is, of course, a notoriously elusive term. This, however, does not diminish our ability to say something about it. Beauty implies judgment and judgment implies content and interpretation. This is a value laden, subject-object relationship. Beauty relates not only to judgment (perhaps better referred to as recognition) but also desire. Beauty evokes. What does this imply? This implies that the subject-object relationship is not one way. The object of aesthetic attention is neither passive nor neutral. This also assumes that the subject is able to receive from the object. This is a question of boundaries. How the subject positions the object determines the potential of the relationship. A doctor anaesthetizing his or her patient greatly affects the influence of mutual effect between them. The object of beauty then can be imaged as the beast, or more particularly in this account, the bull. There are many levels at which a bull may be appreciated. These levels indicate the boundaries in which the subject his access to it. First, someone may wear or eat the bull. In this case, the life of the bull has ended. However, the feel of the leather and the taste of meat may evoke an appreciation of the animal and what it has to offer. In this instance the relationship is largely predictable, almost scientific. Feed and care for the bull in the appropriate way and it will consistently produce the type of effect desired. The relationship is determined by the subject. Second, the subject may attend a rodeo. Here the majesty of the bull can be witnessed in its irreducible of form and movement. Its dense energy almost visible emerging outside its skin. The subject can, undoubtedly, appreciate and even be moved by the beauty of such a display. However, the subject remains one side of the fence with the bull on the other. Mental conflict or joy may result but the subject remains in control of the object’s proximity. Finally, the subject may climb over the fence and stand inside the ring with bull. The subject sees nothing new in the creature, but perceives its presence in an entirely different manner. Something happened in the crossing of the fence. The presence of the object fills mental senses in a way that the prior removed object could not. What the bull does has a direct effect upon the subject and, just as importantly, what the subject does has an effect on the bull. However, in contrast to scientific assumptions, the subject cannot control the procedures. The subject must understand how to relate. In this way we can begin to understand the terror of beauty and its uncontrollable nature. However, there are those who work with bulls and then learn better and worse ways to relate. Growing up on the farm I found that to turn and run was one of the worst.
This image was evoked to demonstrate one key point regarding the role of aesthetics. The various levels of relationship between the bull and the onlooker demonstrate that there are legitimate and accessible sources of knowledge that cannot conform to rigorous scientific methodology. This does not negate science, but it attempts to appropriately position it. Perhaps it is possible then to locate aesthetics alongside natural science and philosophical reason as legitimate sources of knowledge. These should not be taken as compartmentalized, but as mutually informing. How then does aesthetics cohere as a discipline?
