I'm going to write this even though it's doomed to failure, all the finites are veritable nothings compared the the Infinite. We might could even argue they're incommensurate meaning there is no common measure between them therefore it is impossible to compare. Perhaps this is the necessity of allegory, the purpose of an art and the perpetuator of irrationals in our overly-empirical society. None of this makes sense, it makes nonsense. I never blogged as an academic, I'm with Debord on spurning footnotes and sourcing, but I'll quit with the apophasis.
Coomaraswamy wrote a killer essay destroying modern conceptions of "aesthetics." Lets just look at the word, that's what he did. Lets accept this definition of aesthesis as "an unelaborated elementary awareness of stimulation." Essentially we're talking about a sensual activity. Some synonyms cited include "sensation," "perception," "visual perception," "olfactory sensation," etc. When we talk about an "aesthetic experience" we're talking about something that happens to our body from the outside, something that affects us, stimulates our senses.
With "perception" is where a sort of duality emerges. Perception we find defined as "the act or faculty of apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind." Here we're not limited to sensory input, we're caught in the infinitely regressive quagmire that is Intellect. An "apprehending of the mind." What, pray tell, is apprehended? Apprehend itself means in a sense "to perceive." We're getting a bit circular here, and then it just seems pointless, but traditional conceptions of Life, Time, etc. tend to be cyclic instead of linear anyways.
An aesthetic experience is, accordingly, first a stimulation of the body and then an apprehension of this stimulation by the mind. Now we get to the slipperyness that is "aesthetics" as a science of beauty. We're born into an endless stream of stimulations apprehended by the mind. In some sense the entirety of life is an "experience" of sensory stimuli "apprehended," or perhaps made-sense-of, by the mind, by processes of cognition, etc. At this point it may be advantageous to reference Huxley's discussion of "Doors of Perception."
What happens when you're born? You're overwhelmed by new sensory experiences your burgeoning mind must make some sense of. If your mind doesn't make any "sense" of them, you're not able to participate in the social structure and culture of the world. We learn as we grow to make distinctions (science) as to what is important and what isn't, what we ought pay "attention" to and what we may be just as well off disregarding. The process takes years. At first we're charmed and dissociated babies: all the surfaces, sounds, sights, all stimuli are dazzling and mysterious. Everything gets a touch, a sniff, a look and most times a taste. All the stimuli, all sensory input is examined, is "apprehended" and assessed. We live and breathe as miniature aestheticians.
As we grow, we amass some scientific tools. Science as a word comes from roots meaning "to separate" or "to divide." Perhaps because of our Will and drive, we make assessments and judgments about which bits of sensory input are most useful. Which are the tastes, sounds, sights, etc. that we must focus our "attention" or "apprehension" on as to be most effective in the world? Gets real close to questions of ethics and morality real quickly. What's an "effective" behavior? What is "useful"? Perhaps these are all just as pointless questions as that at the core of aesthetics: What is "beautiful?"
But we can't stop here. Lets jump to Kant's proposed "aesthetic attitude." We might define it as an "attitude of detached and disinterested, but engaged, contemplation." First of all, we'll note how silly it seems to posit an "attitude" that is aesthetic when the very substance of our Life Experience is aesthesis (sensory stimulation). In my humble opinion one would be hard-pressed to find someone roaming this real world without incurring sensory stimulation. But this is beside the point and there are some ways in which this concept can be applicable, and, yes, useful.
The artist performs a remarkably curious task of assigning an "aesthetic" value to an object. This "object" need not be a physical thing, but may also be a process, a lapse of time, a series of events, etc. The artist, the genius, "sees" this object in a certain way, approaches it with a curious "attitude." Now within the modern mindset, we look to these "administers," these "artists' for what to consider as an "art," what to consider an "aesthetic object" or experience. But in reality we each have innumerable aesthetic experiences every moment, what the artist does is merely assume an attitude.
Now we'll get to my proposed spectrum. What are we considering "aesthetically valuable"? At our birth, when the "doors" are open, all our sensory stimuli are treated with the same awe, the same sublimity with which we later treat art objects, aesthetic objects. We then are nurtured into a society in which, by necessity, we make judgments about what is important to view with this attitude of awe, and what isn't. The reality of it is that all these "objects" are all equally dazzling, all worthy of examination, all embodiments of beauty, etc. What I propose is an idea that an artist has more of their "doors" open, assumes an attitude receptive to the dazzle in all things, and this allows them to choose particularly effective exemplars of this sublimity.
It gets kind of close to being a little crazy, having a "split mind," or not being able to make distinctions between what is "valuable" or "useful" and what isn't. I've noted this with autistic children as well. In my view, the issue is a sort of inability to discern between what is socially important stimuli and what isn't. Whereas a cognitively normal person knows what sounds, what sensory input is most important for sociability with other humans, these children can't make the distinction. This manifests in a seeming ability to hear better than others or notice things that a typical person doesn't. In my view this isn't because they possess special sensory abilities, but because they lack what others have as far as discerning ability.
The genius sees the worth of all beyond the confines of human society. There is no distinction made between what is "important" for participation in the Logos and what is important on a scale beyond humanity. Whereas it is useful for us to note those stimuli which make us more effective persons in the social sphere, what is admirable in an artist or a person with curious thought is their ability to note those stimuli which, while they may not be socially useful in the conventional way, are encapsulations of an essential quality of a Universe that human beings are merely part and parcel of. We see at one point of this spectrum those who have concern merely with what is useful socially, and on the other extreme those dazzled by both applicable stimuli for humans, and stimuli that has nothing to do with us at all.
I know I've wandered on this one. I have no discipline. It's difficult to force myself to write things out, to get to the task. I feel like de Lubicz as I've written before. As much as I depend upon word analysis, philology for argument, words and symbols remain hopelessly inadequate. The Infinite cannot be captured in a finite and writing out more words to try and capture it with some hope of getting it "all" in is delusional. It demonstrates no knowledge of the meaning of Infinite, a word that means very clearly "not finished." A symbol is by nature finished, static, the Universe, this Life and Being are dynamic. There's a perpetual tension between the two that's been discussed by men and women across all culture and era. To suppose we are the only ones with an insight into this quandary is ridiculous. Keep loving, keep being, keep trying, it never ends.
On that note I'll close with a little Tagore paraphrased by a student years later. Often we are dazzled by that which is exotic, which we have no schema for, which we've never encountered. Often we are most receptive to that which is novel and new to our ears. We note this in music listening habits, artistic consumption trends and otherwise. People have a tremendous yearning for something "new" and "original" though the Bible is quick to tell us there is "nothing new under the Sun." The desire and drive remains. It's only difficult to have those fresh and curious eyes about those things which are most immediate to us, most local. To find a beauty and a worth in those things which we've learned to tune out is a true accomplishment. As Tagore has said, "I have spent a fortune traveling to distant shores and looked at lofty mountains and boundless oceans, yet I haven't found time to take a few steps from my house to look at a single dew drop on a single blade of grass."
