On the Verge of Lunacy

I guess what makes art Art is that it is a level above or below reality. It either enhances the image of the object to give more essence to its existence or the artist strips down ordinary things to make them look more ordinary. I think this what Aristotle meant by the "essence of the ideal". Whatever that ideal image is, it can only be seen or felt by looking at how and why the object was made. And by that he pertains only to the physical appearance of the object because the the truth itself can only be seen through its physical manifestation. He was trying to say that although we only imitate the ideal, the essence, even it is much farther removed from the truth as Plato claimed, is still within that object. If that is the case then we should look at art as to how it is imitated. There must be something in a piece of work that we do not like that we must have overlooked. Just like what the director did to the story in the movie "Tuhog". To him the story is more ...

People vary in responses and opinions on what is beautiful and not so pleasing to the eyes. Not everyone finds Brad Pitt attractive and not everyone likes dark skin. These judgments reflect familial, cultural, religious or political conditioning. But even people in the same background vary in their preferences. Most girls like me do not consider guns as works of art. Not everyone likes the sound of it. For most people it symbolizes violence, cruelty and death. But to me, they are no different from paintings or music or literature. So what do people look for when they judge its aesthetic value? There are two things or categories that people use to evaluate objects. It can be what most would label the “objective” perspective where the person looks at the elements like lines and colors in a painting for example. The others try to attach meanings and compare them to experiences and memories of people, objects or events that appeal to the emotions. It was this emotional part that Plato ...