the challenging of aesthetics
Created | Updated Apr 7, 2002
The dream, or at least part of the dream, of many people, is to change the world, to change the way people look at things. To fix the mistakes.
I was thinking about this. How far can it be taken? How can you justify going to one point and not the next? And ultimately, if you do validate it to yourself, how can the then logical conclusion be reached and that, in itself, justified? And is there a need for this justification?
Hmmm.
OK. To challenge the aesthetics of people is to take things they do not find pleasing, and show them to them in a form, whether out of context, in saturation or whatever, until the people have no problem with the action/object. It has become a part of their aesthetic.
If this is done with everything, from the opening of the mind to swear words, from music and fashion to nuclear power, how far can it go before the end is self-imposed?
If it comes to a point whereby you no longer wish to challenge the aesthetics of somebody, because you believe this new thing to be too extreme, horrible or whatever, then isn't all you're doing refusing to challenge your own aesthetics?
And the line really has to be drawn. But where? As an example, I think that words are just words, and should be able to be used anywhere, at anytime. You, however, may think that swearing in front of children is wrong, and I may challenge you there, by saying that if we don't think these words are 'vulgar', then neither will our children. On this account I see myself as in the right. Again, though, if confronted with scenes of graphic violence and pain, though I don't think we should be entirely shielded, I think showing these images to children is not that great. What I'm asking is how can we justify one thing, and then turn around and say 'hang on a minute, I think this is wrong'.
Aesthetics create rights and wrongs. With them we are cursed to come up against prejudice all over the place, and without them we would live in absolute apathy, which is never useful. So an existence between these two points is obviously the only solution about to happen. One where people try to change the world for their version of 'the better', until they become disillusioned and disheartened by the constant barrage brought on by conflicting and challenged aesthetics, and fade away, only to be overlapped by the always ready to 'try something new' person that they used to be.
This begs many more questions and a lot more thought.
I was thinking about this. How far can it be taken? How can you justify going to one point and not the next? And ultimately, if you do validate it to yourself, how can the then logical conclusion be reached and that, in itself, justified? And is there a need for this justification?
Hmmm.
OK. To challenge the aesthetics of people is to take things they do not find pleasing, and show them to them in a form, whether out of context, in saturation or whatever, until the people have no problem with the action/object. It has become a part of their aesthetic.
If this is done with everything, from the opening of the mind to swear words, from music and fashion to nuclear power, how far can it go before the end is self-imposed?
If it comes to a point whereby you no longer wish to challenge the aesthetics of somebody, because you believe this new thing to be too extreme, horrible or whatever, then isn't all you're doing refusing to challenge your own aesthetics?
And the line really has to be drawn. But where? As an example, I think that words are just words, and should be able to be used anywhere, at anytime. You, however, may think that swearing in front of children is wrong, and I may challenge you there, by saying that if we don't think these words are 'vulgar', then neither will our children. On this account I see myself as in the right. Again, though, if confronted with scenes of graphic violence and pain, though I don't think we should be entirely shielded, I think showing these images to children is not that great. What I'm asking is how can we justify one thing, and then turn around and say 'hang on a minute, I think this is wrong'.
Aesthetics create rights and wrongs. With them we are cursed to come up against prejudice all over the place, and without them we would live in absolute apathy, which is never useful. So an existence between these two points is obviously the only solution about to happen. One where people try to change the world for their version of 'the better', until they become disillusioned and disheartened by the constant barrage brought on by conflicting and challenged aesthetics, and fade away, only to be overlapped by the always ready to 'try something new' person that they used to be.
This begs many more questions and a lot more thought.
