Home

oops

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. πŸ˜‰

13 thoughts on “Art apologies

  1. I don’t know if Ron knew “everything” or not; but I do know that what he did write upon, he researched and studied extensively and thus was able to delineate his findings and state exactly what he meant.

    • CB:

      You may not know, but I do. Ron did not know “everything” and Ron was not God. But he was a gifted and pragmatic researcher. And we benefit from the fact that, unlike others before and after him, his purpose was pure– to lift up Mankind, not to control him.

      Paul

        • CB:

          Jeeminy, Chris. Enhance your calm.

          There are those out there, some possibly lurking on this blog, who think that we think of Ron as “God”. Obviously we don’t. But when you say, “I don’t know if Ron knew everything”, that’s virtually Ron as God. So my first impulse was to clear that up right away– no, Ron didn’t know everything, and no, he wasn’t and isn’t God.

          Ya might want to check your fiber intake there, Pal. I’m just saying. πŸ˜‰

          Paul

          • Hey Paul,

            Don’t be so excited…my calm is just fine, as is my fibre intake. Maybe I should not have said “Sheesh”? I didn’t realize it was one of “those” words! Anyway, you extrapolated “Ron is God” from what I said, but truth is, it never crossed my mind when responding to your post. That’s the simplicity of it. And the end of it. πŸ™‚

            As to those others you think may be lurking, thinking of as a “Ron worshippers”, I couldn’t care less of their ill-informed, ill-conceived viewpoint. As the saying goes: “If you don’t know me by now….”

            Cheers, mate. Keep on plugging. πŸ˜‰

            • CB:

              Of course “sheesh” is one of those words! Didn’t you read the manual? It’s right there on page 42 in my 1986 copy, third paragraph down. Jeeminy (NOT one of those words; see page 44).

              Incidentally, thetans who “know everything” are generally recognized as God, even though such a state is possible for any thetan.

              I’ll keep plugging as long as you keep leaking. LOL. πŸ˜‰

              Paul

          • I have read such a logical fallacies based on what somebody wrote in this blog that I think it’s worth clarifying for the lurkers.

  2. As a professional working artist from the tender age of 15 to present day, so far, I don’t see where LRH missed anything essential in The Art Series.

    The subject you refer to was clarified by LRH earlier in The Factors.
    “17. And the opinion of the viewpoint regulates the consideration of the forms, their stillness or their motion, and these considerations consist of assignment of beauty or ugliness to the forms and these considerations alone are art.”

    It was therefore not necessary for him to readdress this specific point (the aesthetic content contained with any given piece of art) in the presentation of his later observations on art.

    The “message” any work might convey, like “Big boys eat all of their potatoes,” may have nothing to do with the “aesthectic” of the piece whatsoever.

    That’s why you can hear a song about a young man, soon to die at the end of a hanging rope. (Form) A truly dark message. Yet it can be so beautiful it can bring tears of joy to an audience’s eyes. (The Artist’s consideration)

    It transcends the rope, the Judge and Jury, the body (MEST – Form) and speaks to the honor and the strength of the human spirit in that circumstance. (Aesthetic)

    R

    • Ren:

      Just so. And that consideration of the viewpoint regarding the “assignment of beauty or ugliness” is normally done in concert or in agreement with the original artist, the fellow who put those dimension points out there and whom our “viewpoint” is duplicating (or more formally, whose original dimension points our viewpoint is duplicating).

      And for those who are endlessly curious, I do eat all of my potatoes. Matter of fact, I’ll eat yours too, if you leave the table early. πŸ˜‰

      Paul

  3. PZ:

    It does sometimes raise questions. But as I’ve often said with regard to teenagers and the lack of a specific “tech” for them, it often simply means, “there’s no need for a tech I didn’t mention– it’s right there in the tech you already have”.

    Paul

  4. The subject was extensively discussed in the PDC lectures and that time period – the study of the Tone Scale and the aesthetic wave as it operated up and down at varying points. The idea of “beautiful sadness” and such.

What is your view?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s