Specialized vs Native Percepetion

Virgil Aldrich refers to the Aesthetic philosophy of Monroe C. Beardsley (Aesthetics, 1958). According to Beardsley, Aesthetic perception is a special kind of perception which is informed by experience and an aesthetic education. The more you know about art, the more you see. This is undoubtedly true. However, it is unsustainable from the pragmatic point of view. There becomes just insider art and outsider art. The Term “outsider Art” is restricted by the Insiders as referring to the work of savants, the retarded and the ignorant. All other aesthetic production either addresses insiders or else is relegated to a sub status of “Art in the Park.”

As a participant in the Marketplace of the Park, I take objection. According to Beardsley’s view, aesthetic perception is a product of artistic education. Thus, it is not a natural perception; my own art seeks to bridge the gap between the specialist and the natural or native aesthetic perception. It boils down to the fact that most folks have not taken 8 college level hours of art history, not do they frequent museums and galleries nor slaver over art books and magazines (as I do). I happen to enjoy viewing and studying art. That is my profession. I cannot demand this of my audience.

Granted, there must be a type of perception which is special to the art object. However, the producer should not restrict the audience to the advanced practitioner, grant writers, art administrators, and the artistic in-crowd. The valid work of art must address the wider audience.

Pre-Polished and Poised for Production

Tonight I pre-polished my hammers and steaks getting ready for a new round of production. They still need some work. Tomorrow I will hit them with another course of gray clay and then a course of green tripoli. After that, polished or not I'll start banging out some new silver earrings using the narrow end of the riveting hammer as a raising steak for a silver piece. I'll show you what I'm talking about in a subsequent post.

Evidence To Lay Bare

Thoughts on Virgil Aldrige's Philosophy of Art

There is a kind of objectivity in looking at a work of art that is the same detached objectivity that one has looking at a hammer or for that matter, a pile of shit. This is a physical view. There is another way of looking at and talking about a work of art that constitutes a ‘logical’ view. This view involves looking at the work of art, interpreting at an experiential level and elaborating on it. There is also the ‘metaphysical’ view which is again, different from the physical or logical view of the work of art.

The logical view must be based on what is evident. Evidence. The evidence can be placed in plain view. The act of artistic creation is an act of revelation. The artist reveals the evidence. From this perspective, the artist is the instrument of ‘revelation.’ This term, revelation, has metaphysical trappings but here it is intended in a logical sense.

When I answer the question, “What is this? “In regard to my art, I am answering a logical question. Yet, I am afraid, I am not answering the deeper question of what the evidence is that is being laid bare.