JOLI-- nice , BELLE-- beautiful

It was really hard to write something and tell the whole world that what I am writing is the most beautiful piece in the world. Everybody for sure would beg to disagree with such conclusion. Although, by some miracle, I would be able to justify it to the very end, still my work will never be the best in the world. But somehow, this example may contribute to what is really beautiful. Thanks to COMA 110, I became familiar and had realized the beauty in ourselves with Burke, Kant, Hume, Hegel to name a few, it suddenly occurred to me I never give a time to stop and ponder on this.

The exciting and interesting months of reading and wondering how to deal with these lessons, was something I practically cannot explain. I was a bit hesitant (although I love discussing about beauty) to read all the required readings (Aminan na ito! he he he). But since I had to accomplish all these things to pass COMA 110, I was forced to do so. Yet, as time passed by, I was reading the pieces of these philosophers and found out better than spending time chatting on useless topics. I gained something which I should be proud of. Criticizing photographs of Pollock, taking a second look at Kublai’s sculpture—well, I am proud I have done all these things. I had realized how boring the world would be if it wasn’t for these extra special geniuses. If it was not for them, we would not be able to appreciate Pollocks works. If not for them, we would not be able to use their knowledge in order to appreciate one another. It is a domino effect. Do you realize that? By the time we try to appreciate their works (geniuses), we would be able to love others works too. Isn’t it amazing? It does make sense to value by studying the nature of art.

Sometimes, I wonder why I love things that are flashy. When I was in grade school I used to love purple. I buy things color with purple--from tops, to jeans, to mugs, accessories, my brush and even my undies. But then, I have come to realize that I did not like the color purple anymore. I shifted to shades of green. Then I finally landed in orange. Now, I have wondered what’s with orange anyways. Is it really something that makes me happy all the time? (Well, I guess it does, because orange is associated with liveliness) Or is it only in my mind that makes orange aesthetically pleasing for me? This is one question that aesthetics deals with, that is, if beauty is inherent in an object or does it lie only in the mind of the individual experiencing the object. This question I will try to search for an answer as I begin on finding my own concept of what is aesthetically pleasing. Before reaching to my own concept of beauty, let me first take a quick flash back to the road I had been through in which I dealt many thinkers that gave me a slap on my cheek and a bump to my head.

“Sublimity.” Nothing beats this first lesson—my first slap and my first bump on what I used to believe in. What he said is mentally or physically overpowering that mostly accompanied with fear. Then, there was mentioned an experience about an encounter of a snake that first brought fear then gradually notices the beauty of the thing of terror. I was puzzled. I do agree with what Burke said that fear is a very high degree of emotion that makes everything else fading away. Like watching a horror flick, you get so affected that you can’t even sleep because still you think of that terrifying scenes, yet still you want to watch horror. However, I still cannot find a thing of terror to be aesthetically pleasing. It might be sublime but it does not follow that it is beautiful. Having this uncertainty on the definition of sublimity I turn to Longinus who said that “the first and most important source of sublimity is the power of forming great conceptions.” The sublime is something beyond ordinary that brings exaltation to those who witness it. So it’s not like what Burke said, I said to myself, the sublime is a thing of great beauty not full of terror… But before I concluded that Burke has gone to another sphere, Longinus said that the sublime cannot identify itself only to what is simply beautiful, but also to what is so upsetting to cause “bewilderment” “surprise” and even “fear.” I had to stop and carefully absorbed these things which seemed to be simple yet I could not process it. Hmmm, so I need not to confuse myself if I chose to see an object without fear as sublime because Burke is not saying that sublimity is limited to things with terror rather Burke presented that sublimity is not only found on beautiful things but also with horrible things. I am gradually seeing what Burke said whenever I see antagonists in soap operas, they are terrifying yet for me they are more appealing than the angelic faces of lead actors.

Because COMA 110, I had already realized that astonishment does not necessarily mean admiration of wonderful things we see, I had considered unknown objects as aesthetically pleasing. People will always have this fear of the unknown. Of course! Who would not fear darkness, snakes, etc? For some, it doesn't give a feeling of aesthetic pleasure. Unknown objects are really obscure and certainly, they excite the passion for things. But as a contrary, for me, the more unclear the object is, the more it brings certain grandness. The more mysterious, the more exciting!!! ha ha ha!

Hume’s argument is that “there is a point in trying to discover rational standards of taste”. He started saying that no people no matter how alike their experiences are would have the same preferences. So based on this, beauty is then subjective. Yet people set standards because there is a need to reconcile their differences. What would happen if all of us will live accordingly on our own preferences? We should know that having no standards is like a world without laws. It does not mean that having standard will violate a person’s right to judge a thing. Me—what a great idea Hume !!! When standards are set, then came qualities of what makes an art beautiful, and for one to see this, he/she must have experience as what Hume said that a qualified critic should be free from bias, aided with practice, delicate sentiment and perfected with comparison. Perfected with comparison—I just love comparisons. For us to really see the best you must see the worst. Not only that, you must have experinced several of those to let you choose or sort out the best because how can you say this is the best when you only saw a few of all the existing entity of the same category. Before I didn’t understand why many like I’ve Fallen for You. The story is just another love story—a boring story. Well, in the contrary I like their theme song. But over-all the movie had same elements like those of the others. Film makers should try to produce quality movies.

The world of Immanuel Kant. Before, I KANT find anything about him. It was because I was just too tired. But now I see a different aura of Kant. So here comes Kant, will he helped me out in my quest of finding the answer to my question? At first Kant said that beauty is indeed subjective with his concept of Pure Intuition. It’s all about what is going on inside a person’s soul when he/she sees something an object, then it means that beauty is not in the object but in the person because the one who experience the feeling is the individual. What makes it even more appealing is how it implies that one need not know what really is in the object that makes you like it because it is prior to logic, trying to rationalize will taint the pureness of it. But what I can’t seem to grasp at first is his disinterestedness. He then says that it must be free from desire. Kant said that the thing called beauty is pleasing for itself and free from desire or approval. I was thinking over this and finding out an experience of something that I like but I didn’t want. And I found out there are things in this world that simply takes my breath away but because for me it’s too beautiful to behold I don’t desire to have it. Kant added that beauty is subjective but also universal. “The content of judgment refers to the form of the object.” So there is something in the object that makes you think of it this way. Slowly I process it in my mind, then a light came, okay that’s why I used to believe that beauty is not solely objective because actually you have this feelings towards an object because this object is in this form. Common sense. Kant also told the idea of Genius. Genius is born and not made. It is naturally endowed in an individual. (LIKE me! Ha ha ha).

Hegel deals with dialectics. Dialectical Method—thesis plus anti thesis equals synthesis. But I will jut take you all into another discussion, the spirit (espiritista… joke!), the self-conscience that I chose not to discuss because I don’t know how to relate it to the idea of aesthetically pleasing. I certainly love oppositions. Experiencing a game and losing it makes you think of winning the next time around you play that game. And that makes us come up with a better understanding of things. Oppositions and/ or negations are needed for us to see or to know the existence of things. It is also to know which one we should take into consideration. The thing is defined by what is, and what is not. I certainly like the idea. I have done that many times. Especially in one of my experiences in debates, I study the other side’s arguments and by that I would be able to come up with a solution to target their weak arguments. How is this related to beauty anyway? If there is the ugly duckling, there is also the beautiful swan (naks naman!). When someone dies, you feel the absence, and the sadness, and then you will realize its value in your life.

Plato is next in line. Plato said that an artist is a deceiver since what he makes is three times removed from the ideal. Regarding this point, I do not want to argue with Plato. We all know that because of rise of industrialization and increase of globalization, art has broadened its scope. Unlike Plato’s time when artists paints in such a way that it looked like what is real or what is present in this world. Honestly, I appreciate paintings because of its colors and figures. I am also a fan of super realism or magic realism. I want artists who can create something new, something unique and inherent of him. An artist is not a xerox copier of anything; an artist is creative and innovative. For me, aesthetically pleasing paintings are those that create uniqueness like that of Pollock. Somehow, I love paintings that resembles to real things.

Bell , Bell , Bell (ding dong!). “Work of art specifically visual art as valuable”. And he said that we experience “aesthetic emotion” because of the significant form which is made up by the lines and colors combined in a particular way. He also criticizes those who judge art with no artistic sensibility and clear thinking. Yeah, it is true. We associate colors to certain emotions. That is why Cory Aquino wears yellow. That is why red is a symbol of love. That is why I love orange because I feel happy and alive (I hope so…). That is why Vincent Van Gogh’s paintings belong to Expressionism.
I still have not come up with a concrete definition of art. Danto confused me. Danto said about how an ordinary object can be indistinguishable from the work of art. At first, I didn’t quite get it. Then, he showed me Lichtenstein’s works and I found myself nodding in agreement seeing a painting that looked like just another comic cartoons. What then is in a work of art that makes it art? Hmmm, it can be the medium, because the comic is printed with ink while painting used oil???? (Hai na lang!)

Gombrich said that there are “limits to objectivity on art” And that art is not a faithful resemblance of what is there but only a perspective of what is there.
Art can be directed to a certain audience that’s why it is subject to subjectivity again. The idea of art to one culture might be contradicting to another. Thus, there is certainly no universal concept of beauty just like we could not look for the most beautiful girl in the whole world and of the universe (alien!). People will always have a lot of ways of perceiving beauty.
“Style rules even where the artist wishes to reproduce nature faithfully.” I believe so. For example, no matter what I draw, I always have a touch of my style—be it a combination of various styles from stylists alike (he he he). This means that the subject matter of a work of art is filtered through the artist’s subjectivity. Artists have their own personalities, purposes, unique style and capabilities. In every artwork there is an artist you cannot separate him/her from his/her work. One can see certain similarities in an artist works especially on the time or period where it was produced.

Derrida’s truth in painting. A painting is the interpretation of truth, the trees we see in the painting is a different and separate entity from the trees in the real world. According to him, “painting is not necessarily a representation of what is in your reality because the truth of the painting is the painting itself not something in this world”.
Linda Nochlin--somehow for feminists, certainly for women. Why are there been no great women artist? Because they are incapable of greatness? The prevailing patriarchal society has been pushing women out of the picture of art. Right from the start, society was structured is such a way that men have more opportunities than women. Women have always been branded as the weakling and the dumb— one who is not capable of producing equally great art with men. Without undue biases (chaps!), go women go!
Camera here, camera there, camera everywhere. Voila! Camera was invented. With just a click you can have a picture so little time consumed compared to drawing or painting. Art before was accessible only for the elite. But because of this technological breakthrough, art opened doors for the poor. According to some of my readings photography redefined art. it raise the issue that why do we have to trouble ourselves painting for how many hours when you can do it within a second through taking a picture. Though it was presented that way, I still believe that painting is a different entity from photography. Each has its own uniqueness as a form of art that’s why you can’t compare the two. It is true enough that pictures are realistic than paintings. The invention of camera made us capture moments that will never be forgotten—moments and actions that will never be repeated in the same way. It’s not just the scene in the photograph that makes it beautiful but also the memories in it. Pictures like paintings also reflect the person behind it. The way we critic photos depends so many factors which is really hard to elaborate it further.
Power of Movies. Citizen Kane, and all those Sir Nino have shown us. There the best. Well, not my favorites but they are the best of COMA 110. It is the most influential nowadays. I need not say more of what makes movies powerful for I’ve talked about it for three thousand words in my previous post. Movies among all the works of art will always have the greater impact in my and I guess in our lives. Movies turn you into characters: Darna, Captain Barbell, Spiderman, Frodo, Harry Potter, Mrs. Smith, etc. Movies make you cry, laugh, sad, name all those emotions

Beauty is a mystery of how certain objects made you experience such. Beauty lies in the perception of an individual. Beauty is experience by us human beings who are capable of feeling. For this reason I cannot say that beauty and the object is completely separated. What is aesthetically pleasing for me.

During one of our photography sessions in AH5, I found it aesthetically pleasing when I saw Camigiun for the first time in 2006. Camiguin island was one getaway experience for me. It was a trip full of beauty and full of glamour. I had seen several splendid views from the window of the bus I was riding. Along the way, I was at the center. But then, that didn't hinder me to take a look at the beautiful houses, the stares of the people, etc. Right there and then, I was breathtakingly amazed by the beauty of what I saw around me. When I got off the bus, I was even more amazed. I was able to visit several landmarks and scenic sites and I can still remember now how I became stunned upon experiencing the presence of Camigiun Island . After travelling for 6 hours, we rode in a small ship (ngek!) Then, I started to take pictures on one of the little islands that greeted me. Aboard, I savored the unexplainable atmosphere of my life. Yes, it was home a way from home. I forgot for a while everything left in Davao . After an hour, we went down from the two-storey vessel (Am I right?). Then we rode to our place where we had to stay for a night. After packing all the necessary stuff, the adventure begun...

There was Katigbawasan Falls , the springs, the famous Sunken Garden , the rode to Taal Volcano, the ruined cemetery--all these have in common--- beautiful!

My experience in Camiguin alone is those that I considered aesthetically pleasing. I did not see Camigiun as a place ruined by natural calamities. I had an inner experience when I was there, seeing the scenic sites I only see in photographs before. It is of no doubt that my experience there is aesthetically pleasing, because until now, a year had already passed yet the memories of my internal experience in is still fresh in my mind. I am still amazed whenever I think of everything I had seen there