Being present, mindful and attentive were recurring thoughts while reading part I of Saito’s Aesthetics of The Familiar. As Saito states: “Dewey declares that ‘the enemies of the aesthetic are neither practical nor intellectual. They are the humdrum.’ I would instead hold that the enemies of the aesthetic are inattentiveness and mindlessness.”
She goes on to say “What is common to these diverse modes of aesthetic experience is mindful attention, perceptual engagement, and employment of sensibility toward everyday life.”
She raises and important question when contemplating bodily engagement such as cooking and helping her mother chop vegetables: “Ultimately, therefore, are such experiences simply pleasurable and enjoyable without being specifically aesthetic?” I enjoy mowing the lawn and the resulting trimmed yard. I go about it in a very deliberate, mindful and attentive fasion. Is the finished product aesthetically pleasing? I think so. Was the act of mowing an aesthetic experience? Not really.
She concludes the chapter stating: “…as I discussed previously, attending to and cultivating an aesthetic appreciation for these activities [scratching an itch, drinking tea, hanging laundry, cooking] help us develop a mindful way of living. In particular, it facilitates leading a good life without the usual trappings of requiring material abundance accompanied by various moral, social, and environmental problems.” I think this is a big reach and a far cry from aesthetics.
I dislike "progressive," although (long ago) I considered myself one. Ah, those were the days.
And as for erudition, it took less than two decades for "progressives" to make the erudite highly suspect. It's inevitable that we remember Mao and his successes in a similar endeavor. Rather than allow such a winnowing to occur again, let's make erudition honorable again.
One phrase in your commentary stuck out: "... to Dōgen’s setting down of the self." 'Setting down of the self' has no meaning in Buddhist literature or writings of any sort. If this is Saito's phrase, it's careless.
My grumpy critique aside, I admit that what makes me even grumpier is almost all academic discussion of art and beauty. Guston could get away with it because he was a working artist. Picasso and few other icons pulled it off as well. You, Franklin, are a pleasure to read.
But almost universally, academics have fallen down a very dismal sinkhole where they wring their hands, frown, pontificate and expatiate to each other on topics that sound important — but are not. Or that simply miss the mark.
Working artists ignore all the pomposity . It reminds me of that old cliche: Those who can, do; those who cannot, teach (and publish tomes that speak to the 0.001%.)
ADD ShmaDD., leave me alone. I bet I'd win the ADD prize if I went in for a diagnosis, but a physician told me to avoid doctors, and I believed him. Seems like what you're talking about is just getting outside of the box and being equipped to make something edifying out of what you encounter. Really kind of Zen, instead of trying to make things happen, watch what happens and respond appropriately.
When I fly, I usually choose a window seat. I enjoy the slowly changing landscape and clouds. On a return trip from Las Vegas to New York, I was seated in the middle next to a man who pulled the shade down to watch the in-flight movie. He noticed my expression and informed me he had taken this flight many times. In Russian accented English he said, "Believe me, there is nothing to see."
Gee, Franklin, does that mean you're not like everybody else? I don't have ADD, but I've never thought of myself as normal. I'm afraid my opinion of humanity keeps going lower, and I'm sure it's not because they've been diagnosed with ADD, though I can diagnose them with rather worse.
Being present, mindful and attentive were recurring thoughts while reading part I of Saito’s Aesthetics of The Familiar. As Saito states: “Dewey declares that ‘the enemies of the aesthetic are neither practical nor intellectual. They are the humdrum.’ I would instead hold that the enemies of the aesthetic are inattentiveness and mindlessness.”
She goes on to say “What is common to these diverse modes of aesthetic experience is mindful attention, perceptual engagement, and employment of sensibility toward everyday life.”
She raises and important question when contemplating bodily engagement such as cooking and helping her mother chop vegetables: “Ultimately, therefore, are such experiences simply pleasurable and enjoyable without being specifically aesthetic?” I enjoy mowing the lawn and the resulting trimmed yard. I go about it in a very deliberate, mindful and attentive fasion. Is the finished product aesthetically pleasing? I think so. Was the act of mowing an aesthetic experience? Not really.
She concludes the chapter stating: “…as I discussed previously, attending to and cultivating an aesthetic appreciation for these activities [scratching an itch, drinking tea, hanging laundry, cooking] help us develop a mindful way of living. In particular, it facilitates leading a good life without the usual trappings of requiring material abundance accompanied by various moral, social, and environmental problems.” I think this is a big reach and a far cry from aesthetics.
I like "neo-criticality." There's promise there.
I dislike "progressive," although (long ago) I considered myself one. Ah, those were the days.
And as for erudition, it took less than two decades for "progressives" to make the erudite highly suspect. It's inevitable that we remember Mao and his successes in a similar endeavor. Rather than allow such a winnowing to occur again, let's make erudition honorable again.
One phrase in your commentary stuck out: "... to Dōgen’s setting down of the self." 'Setting down of the self' has no meaning in Buddhist literature or writings of any sort. If this is Saito's phrase, it's careless.
My grumpy critique aside, I admit that what makes me even grumpier is almost all academic discussion of art and beauty. Guston could get away with it because he was a working artist. Picasso and few other icons pulled it off as well. You, Franklin, are a pleasure to read.
But almost universally, academics have fallen down a very dismal sinkhole where they wring their hands, frown, pontificate and expatiate to each other on topics that sound important — but are not. Or that simply miss the mark.
Working artists ignore all the pomposity . It reminds me of that old cliche: Those who can, do; those who cannot, teach (and publish tomes that speak to the 0.001%.)
ADD ShmaDD., leave me alone. I bet I'd win the ADD prize if I went in for a diagnosis, but a physician told me to avoid doctors, and I believed him. Seems like what you're talking about is just getting outside of the box and being equipped to make something edifying out of what you encounter. Really kind of Zen, instead of trying to make things happen, watch what happens and respond appropriately.
When I fly, I usually choose a window seat. I enjoy the slowly changing landscape and clouds. On a return trip from Las Vegas to New York, I was seated in the middle next to a man who pulled the shade down to watch the in-flight movie. He noticed my expression and informed me he had taken this flight many times. In Russian accented English he said, "Believe me, there is nothing to see."
Tender Buttons come to mind
Gee, Franklin, does that mean you're not like everybody else? I don't have ADD, but I've never thought of myself as normal. I'm afraid my opinion of humanity keeps going lower, and I'm sure it's not because they've been diagnosed with ADD, though I can diagnose them with rather worse.