|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian General Discussion Forum | Start a topic | Search |
 Re: Worcestershire Ramble part 2 204 messages | Select a forum: |
| .............>> Once I start thinking like this, the evidence starts to scream at me from through the window. I call it natural aesthetics, but I don’t know if it’s a known idea. It’s Man that ruins the view, not God/Nature. And more, if God/Nature lays a hand on the works of man it usually makes it more pleasing. OK, there’s thousands of examples of exceptions, where man-made things are beautiful and pristine, but there’s millions of confirmations. A fence with ivy or without. Moss. Erosion. Chaotic burgeoning hedgerows. Natural farming methods. The softening of straight lines. (Straight lines! What bizarre quirk made us dislike those, other than this reason?) Rust. Patina. Further, perhaps the principle extends to subconscious associations. Here’s my own list of aesthetically preferred roof coverings, in ascending order (sad git!): Bitumen felt, concrete tiles, clay tiles, slate, thatch. Agree? Why on earth would we all have similar feelings about such a matter, unless we were reacting negatively to the degree to which the hand of Man was involved in them? And it’s the hand of modern man that seems to piss us off, not that of our ancestors. Not surprising, I would suggest, since it’s from them that we got our quirky ideas. They and therefore we were moulded in a very different world from what we have now. The industrial revolution has been too much of a rush, and we haven’t adjusted to it yet. Why should we have, when our pre-industrial development stretched thousands of times longer. Thus, traditional manufacture is fine. Arrowheads are beautiful unless laser cut (why? It’s not just age, it’s more than that, surely?) And when it comes to megaliths, they’ve got lots going for them in specifically aesthetic terms. The hand of our ancestors (traditional manufacture, marked by stone mauls not power tools, no straight lines) and the hand of God/Nature – erosion, lichen, leaning – in fact they may well look more appealing to us than they did to our ancestors. I wonder if they were impatient for moss to grow on them and tempted to distress them a bit – that’s what I’ve done with the concrete Buddha in my garden, and it was their genes that told me to!). So, that’s my bid for world peace. The duality you fear from the use of the word spirituality is hardly an issue. You say: “beauty, the aim of aesthetics, is (for me, I mean) a highly spiritual thing!” I say, me too, when I react to beauty I’m reacting to the spirit of my ancestors who inhabited a world more close to nature. The further I get from their world, the more aesthetically displeased I am, and vice versa. There’s nothing wrong with the look of the modern world if only it was where we grew up but it isn’t. I’m from elsewhere, so me and my genes and my psyche find it very disturbing, not what we’re used to at all. Any time I catch a glimpse of the old country I’m pleased and I say “that’s beautiful”. It does me a power of good, stops me going insane. When you say beauty is “good for the soul” I say yes it is. Reply | with quote |  28th June 2003ce 10:30 In reply to: Worcestershire Ramble part 1 (nigelswift) |
Messages in this topic: |
|