By Paul Foster
I have from time to time made statements along the line that Ron may have made a critical omission from his analysis of art by omitting major mention of the ‘aesthetic’ included in the work, inserted by the artist.
I’ve stated that this was something put there by the artist and perceivable by the viewer of the art, distinct from anything else. But for reasons unknown to us, Ron doesn’t really mention it in any major way in his writings on art. Instead, he talks extensively about the mechanics and methods of art and the quality of such. I felt this was a crucial omission and puzzled over why LRH would spend so little time on it.
But as I’ve pondered over this, it occurred to me that there was one reason Ron would have omitted a major treatment of it: he considered it optional and not part of the art carrier wave (medium). If that was so (that Ron had omitted it for that reason), then he must have considered it part of the ‘message’. And indeed, when you think about it, it ‘is’ part of the message.
A piece of art may or may not contain an aesthetic wave put there by the artist, and it may or may not represent beauty or ugliness. And if that’s the case, it is not part of the mechanics or the method of the art. It is separate and optional. It would instead be part the message. Perhaps a separate part of the message, but nonetheless part of the message.
Ron’s research into art was to find the common denominators of all art, the <em>essential</em> factors, and determine the few simplicities which govern art in general, in contrast to the vast confusion which surrounds the subject in today’s culture. Only the essential components and rules would do, and anything else was optional and would not be considered.
So my musings about the (optional) aesthetic in art were mistaken. It is not part of the mechanics or methods of art, but a part of the message, which the artist may or may not include.
My apologies to any who have followed my comments and perhaps been thrown off course by what I’ve said. Ron was indeed right, as usual, and I was incorrect.
I shoulda known. 😉