If I tell you that inside this box is a one foot long piece of grey metal you will accept that the object is a foot long, grey and made of metal.
If I tell you that the object is also beautiful however, you will not accept this until you have seen it with your own eyes.
Does this mean that objects, artworks and wanky bass solos don't have any intrinsic quality which we can call beautiful?
1 comment:
There's an old saying:
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
I follow your statements but don't follow the logic that got us to the last step.
An artwork, albeit a 'wanky bass solo' must be 'looked at'.
I guess it's like defining someone as an idiot. The power in the definition will depend on the power of observation (and universal accuracy there of; whatever that might be decided to be)of the person who made the remark. Who knows, being labelled an idiot might be a good thing in certain situations.
The word 'wanky' is often used as a throw away by an observer who didn't really 'get it' and is not altogether sure how to explain his thoughts (or feelings?). Now we get into a tricky area because most art is, by definition, undefineable. This is where emotional intelligence comes to the fore. Emotinal intelligence is a feeling, not a set of numbers or a string of fancy words.
There's another old saying:
"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture."
A true artist would probably say,
"I don't know what's in the box and, at the end of the day, I don't really give a fuck. But what a splendidly interesting box!"
R (of RBB)
ps. you won't believe this, but my word verification was 'oinkoeiz'!!!
Post a Comment