Monday, January 26, 2009

Appendix to the Mideval Aesthetic Article

After that article on the Mideval aesthetic, you may be wondering what my personal views on the subject of unity versus fecundity are. My personal view is that because unity is related to form (putting in elements of a different form destroys the unity), it can have imperfections. If it does not have imperfections, unity is achieved. Once unity is achieved, the artist is better off adding fecundity, not unity, because the addition of fecundity, by definition, is an addition of existence and thus goodness. An increase of unity is just as likely to take away elements (and thus, existence) as to add them, and unlike the addition of fecundity, which would not remove the unity if added properly, the addition of unity beyond lack of imperfection is likely to remove the fecundity. This view is much closer to the mideval aesthetic than it is to the non-mideval one.

4 comments:

Ancient Greek Philosopher said...

I think I'll comment, but not
because I have anything good to
say. :-) I'm not sure I'm
understanding what you're saying.
I've been really slow this past
week...

Ancient Greek Philosopher said...

Are you saying that unity can or
can't have imperfections?

Old Fashioned Liberal said...

Unity with imperfections is not perfect unity.

Ancient Greek Philosopher said...

Okay. It's all clear to me now...