Re: aesthetic theory

From: Bernard Roddy (email suppressed)
Date: Mon May 07 2007 - 16:55:21 PDT

Thank you, Adam. I didn't mean to devalue Jack's suggestions, to control the conversation, or to recommend reading at the cost of making. Actually, I would prefer to read work he includes as recommendations to any of the writing addressed to what I think of as "aesthetics." I just thought my reading suggestions would address the request better, particularly given that Liam makes reference to fine art. I have read a couple essays by Blanchot, one of which is an excellent discussion of Sade. As far as I know, he does not talk about visual art. I could be wrong, but I believe the book, The Writing of the Disaster, is not a discussion of visual art. I have Bataille's book, The Tears of Eros, which is about the history of art, but I think he restricts himself to figurative historical painting, and this seems to be his only writing on visual art. I don't think it's very substantial or serves an interest in aesthetics very well. It's true that my suggestions are all art
 historical and not particularly inspirational. As far as I can tell, this is basically the fate of aesthetics. It's also true that there's a series of publications that includes writers like Emmanuel Levinas and that is called "Crossing Aesthetics." I have yet to understand just what these texts have to do with aesthetics. Whatever the connection, they are certainly worth reading as an artist.
Adam Trowbridge <email suppressed> wrote:
  I took Liam's question as a request from an artist interested in
aesthetics as action not as a subject to talk around. I think
Bernard's suggestions would make for interesting reading but not at
the expense of trying to control the conversation by devaluing Jack's

On May 6, 2007, at 1:02 PM, Bernard Roddy wrote:

> Jack Sargent mentions several excellent writers, but for aesthetics?

For aesthetics? Deleuze's Nietzsche and Philosophy Yes. Yes! YES!

It is probably the finest book someone interested in producing art
can read.

p 102
'Nietzsche has a tragic conception of art. It rests on two principles
which must be understood as ancient ones, but also as principles of
the future. Firstly, art is the opposite of a "disinterested"
operation: it does not heal, calm, sublimate or pay off, it does not
"suspend" desire, instinct or will. On the contrary, art is a
"stimulant of the will to power","something that excites willing".
The criticial sense of this is obvious: it exposes every reactive
conception of art.'


Adam Trowbridge
email suppressed

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
 Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.