Comments on: Scruton v Januszczak, and the nature of beauty http://www.perplexicon.net/2009/12/scruton-v-januszczak-and-the-nature-of-beauty/ Contrary to what you might think, a blog about what's contrary to what you might think. Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:50:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: John http://www.perplexicon.net/2009/12/scruton-v-januszczak-and-the-nature-of-beauty/comment-page-1/#comment-3192 John Fri, 28 May 2010 06:59:13 +0000 http://www.perplexicon.net/?p=287#comment-3192 Of course Roger is a propaganda hack for both Opus Dei and the AEI. These two references describe the dreadful applied politics promoted by these two outfits. http://www.logosjournal.com/hammer_kellner.html http://www.matthewfox.org/sys-tmpl/htmlpage7 Rogers friends also provide loud support for the dreadful outfit described and criticized here: http://www.soaw.org The effects of these applied politics are also comprehensively described in The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. Of course Roger is a propaganda hack for both Opus Dei and the AEI.

These two references describe the dreadful applied politics promoted by these two outfits.

http://www.logosjournal.com/hammer_kellner.html

http://www.matthewfox.org/sys-tmpl/htmlpage7

Rogers friends also provide loud support for the dreadful outfit described and criticized here:

http://www.soaw.org

The effects of these applied politics are also comprehensively described in The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

]]> By: David Michael http://www.perplexicon.net/2009/12/scruton-v-januszczak-and-the-nature-of-beauty/comment-page-1/#comment-1641 David Michael Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:00:55 +0000 http://www.perplexicon.net/?p=287#comment-1641 If you really believe in dialectic, why not point out some actual weaknesses, rather than that just saying that there are weaknesses, which anyone can do? If you really believe in dialectic, why not point out some actual weaknesses, rather than that just saying that there are weaknesses, which anyone can do?

]]> By: an-aesthetic http://www.perplexicon.net/2009/12/scruton-v-januszczak-and-the-nature-of-beauty/comment-page-1/#comment-1632 an-aesthetic Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:56:56 +0000 http://www.perplexicon.net/?p=287#comment-1632 It's a pity you seem so keen to censure any debate - you might actually learn something from people who can see the holes in your posts. Obviously you don't believe in dialectic! It’s a pity you seem so keen to censure any debate – you might actually learn something from people who can see the holes in your posts. Obviously you don’t believe in dialectic!

]]> By: David Michael http://www.perplexicon.net/2009/12/scruton-v-januszczak-and-the-nature-of-beauty/comment-page-1/#comment-1615 David Michael Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:15:42 +0000 http://www.perplexicon.net/?p=287#comment-1615 I thought it was only flawed on levels 3 and 5. What was flawed about the other levels? I thought it was only flawed on levels 3 and 5. What was flawed about the other levels?

]]> By: an-aesthetic http://www.perplexicon.net/2009/12/scruton-v-januszczak-and-the-nature-of-beauty/comment-page-1/#comment-1613 an-aesthetic Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:42:08 +0000 http://www.perplexicon.net/?p=287#comment-1613 Totally flawed on every level. Try reading some Kant before you pronounce on beauty!! Do some homework. Totally flawed on every level. Try reading some Kant before you pronounce on beauty!! Do some homework.

]]> By: an-aesthetic http://www.perplexicon.net/2009/12/scruton-v-januszczak-and-the-nature-of-beauty/comment-page-1/#comment-1608 an-aesthetic Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:35:54 +0000 http://www.perplexicon.net/?p=287#comment-1608 There is a fundamental difference between those who see art as an empirical enterprise based in sight and observation of the real world and those clowns who believe that conceptual art needs words to make up for their lack of skills talent and visual ability. Words are nothing to do with visual art they are a system of signs concerned with language, Scruton is right and Waldemar is wrong. It is as simple as that. Words are needed in contemporary art for the use of the advertising industry and not for the uselessness of fine art. There is a fundamental difference between those who see art as an empirical enterprise based in sight and observation of the real world and those clowns who believe that conceptual art needs words to make up for their lack of skills talent and visual ability. Words are nothing to do with visual art they are a system of signs concerned with language, Scruton is right and Waldemar is wrong. It is as simple as that. Words are needed in contemporary art for the use of the advertising industry and not for the uselessness of fine art.

]]> By: David Michael http://www.perplexicon.net/2009/12/scruton-v-januszczak-and-the-nature-of-beauty/comment-page-1/#comment-1587 David Michael Sun, 06 Dec 2009 12:56:22 +0000 http://www.perplexicon.net/?p=287#comment-1587 Thanks, Steve, for the brilliant collection of Oscar Wilde quotes. It's quite surprising that there are so many quotable lines only in a preface. That makes me think that I should really read The Picture of Dorian Gray one of these days. Thanks again. Thanks, Steve, for the brilliant collection of Oscar Wilde quotes. It’s quite surprising that there are so many quotable lines only in a preface. That makes me think that I should really read The Picture of Dorian Gray one of these days. Thanks again.

]]> By: Steve http://www.perplexicon.net/2009/12/scruton-v-januszczak-and-the-nature-of-beauty/comment-page-1/#comment-1586 Steve Sun, 06 Dec 2009 02:10:56 +0000 http://www.perplexicon.net/?p=287#comment-1586 Interesting post. I came across this same topic in the preface to Oscar Wilde's novel The Picture of Dorian Gray. Wilde is very much the aesthete. This is what he has to say on Art and Beauty: The artist is the creator of beautiful things. To reveal art and conceal the artist is art's aim. The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things. The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography. Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault. Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty. There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all. The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass. The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass. The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium. No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved. No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style. No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything. Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art. Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art. From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor's craft is the type. All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital. When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself. We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely. All art is quite useless. Interesting post. I came across this same topic in the preface to Oscar Wilde’s novel The Picture of Dorian Gray. Wilde is very much the aesthete. This is what he has to say on Art and Beauty:

The artist is the creator of beautiful things.

To reveal art and conceal the artist is art’s aim.

The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.

The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.

Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.

Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope. They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only beauty.

There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.

The nineteenth century dislike of realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.

The nineteenth century dislike of romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass.

The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium.

No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved.

No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style.

No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything.

Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art.

Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art.

From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor’s craft is the type.

All art is at once surface and symbol.

Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril.

Those who read the symbol do so at their peril.

It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.

Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital.

When critics disagree, the artist is in accord with himself.

We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.

All art is quite useless.

]]>