-- Film-Philosophy After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list -- Film-Philosophy journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/ Film-Philosophy Conference (6-8 July 2011): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/ Contact: [log in to unmask] --
i am delighted -- for once that word is not a conventional platitude – that my little question has elicited so rich a response, suggesting that “beauty” remains a matter of concern to at least a few people
encouraged by that, i’m tempted [and i never resist temptation] to share four questions with the list
1. i’m especially struck by henry’s suspicion that we ”associate beauty with the unblemished and immaculate, and being such is imho anathema to the dramatic” and i wonder whether in some sense this isn’t a widely shared idea . . . could this be why, in an age that typically sees the greatest achievements in art as expressions of tension rather than resolution, beauty – as the highest kind of resolution – plays little role in our discourse?
2. a corollary of # 1: while some critics are inclined to use the word beauty to define the core of any great artistic achievement – the cliché “rough beauty” epitomizes that impulse – aren’t we better off saving “beauty” for things that in some way are indeed “immaculate” – or perfect, or harmonious, or something like that? . . . don’t we generally agree that there are qualities other than beauty that can make for great artistic achievement: complexity, profundity, coherence, etc. . . . why not save “beauty” for one characteristic of art [and other things – sunsets, people, scenery] while not making it equivalent to aesthetic value?
3. i’m very suspicious of arguments that conflate the beautiful with the good [in whatever sense] . . . i take it [wrongly???] that all creatures have some impulse toward the good – understood as that which benefits the organism . . . the flower turning to the sun or the baby to the breast are both pursuing the good whether they know it or not . . . but surely you cannot pursue the beautiful without knowing it – beauty depends on some conception which, i venture, is a sublimation of impulses/desires that is peculiarly human
# 3 does not look like a question but i mean it to be – perhaps it should end with the words: does that seem right??
4. a more personal sort of question which i hope some will choose to answer: if your taste in music runs to contemporary stuff [whether art music or more popular genres] does the concept of beauty play any part in your sense of what’s valuable in that music? . . . is lady gaga’s music beautiful? . . . how about bruce springsteen’s. or elliot carter’s or the mary halvorson quintet or the grateful dead or charles wuorinen or charlie parker or johnny cash . . . well, you get the point: does anybody today listen to music because it’s beautiful???
thanks
m
-----Original Message-----
From: Film-Philosophy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marcelline Block
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 8:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FILM-PHILOSOPHY] another naive question -- on beauty
Another suggestion is Elaine Scarry's _On Beauty and Being Just_.
All the best,
Marcelline
--