- The box was very appealing when it was unwrapped, but there was also a questioning between being a box or a cube in conceptual terms.
- There was an interest in naming it because it was there were several possibilities to go with the box.
- They faced the object as an object so they felted restrained in doing something to the box.
- They used it as a support base, to make it functional.
- in some way the box made part of the family for while, and was created a relation even thought the object itself remained strange to them. The presence of it was a bit frightening because of its size.
- There was a slight contradiction in their behaviour with the object because in one hand it was almost like a sense of loss but in the other hand there was a kind of affection. It is also interesting how the object even thought it didn’t suffered any intervention it became an active object that completed some kind of gap.
- There was also the interest of going for a walk with the box and trying to interact with it in specific places. However the idea didn’t happen!
- At the same time there was a need to not engage with it, because it is something that an ordinary object would not require from you!
- The box had a lot of dust in it.
- The box has also the power to precede you into the room as something that was dislocated.
- Nevertheless there was a creation of a relation due to the box being attractive to them. The physicality of it and its basic and tactile attributes it was not divorced from them because they felt it belonged to the everyday world. Another point that was considered was that it was something natural and very practical to accept.
- There was an objectification of the box diminishing it. The object itself becomes an accumulation of space that seems to belong to place but still does not belong. Remains alienated. There seems to exist a boundary that keeps us to still keep close but at the same time distant from it.
- In some way part of our lives were brought as close as possible because of a need of interacting
- it is also relevant to say with no apparent intention there was created an aura in the object because they felt they could project anything to the box as long as the box remained with no intervention. Afterwards it becomes difficult and there is also other aspect that once the box itself becomes intervened until the point whether it loses its integrity!
"Moral grounds [...] are always the last refuge of people who have no sense of beauty."
ReplyDelete[Oscar Wilde - The Truth of Masks]
e se a moral e' apenas
ReplyDeleteuma desculpa pra disfarçar
a feiura dentro de padroes podres
de poderes ultrapassados?
a beleza não deveria ser questionada?
a beleza ta' nos olhos de quem ve?
vc concorda com isso?
'Beauty' and 'morality' are two subjective concepts based on an individual opinion or taste. In contrast to that 'ethics' and, well, lets say 'design' are based on an objective framework: rules, reasons, arguments – rational criteria.
ReplyDeleteFrom a personal point of view the beautiful might be good. But that's just a first impression, a feeling or a sense which must be proven by research and analysis, by comparison with what we know and have experienced...
Is beauty a measurable concept?
Is morality a more sophisticated concept than beauty?
is it not that the breakdown in our moral integrity is what has allowed us to abuse and destroy the beauty of the natural world?
ReplyDeleteI believe that morality and beauty are one of the same kinds, if you negate one you are immediately desecrating the other. Obviously I don´t want to question the importance of beauty in our lives but the subjectivity that is implicit to its meaning shouldn’t be used as a way of alienating the moral problems that are present when we diminish the power beauty itself.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am trying to say is that perhaps there is the mistake of the beautification paradigm that involves people in the generalization of the essence of beauty that certainly involves questions of morality. These questions make part of our own integrity as human beings that respect ourselves as equals.
Let me say that the beauty is in the little things that we do and see in our everyday life so the way our moral purposes are faced will be the perspective in which we see things.
Edmund Burke presents us with a dynamic process to describe the apprehension of beauty. However, beauty and Morality are issues that in my point of view are in constant conflict because their subjectivity emanates doubt: ‘it deploys the whole kaleidoscopic array of conflicting forces: the prescient and the timeless; the dynamic and the formless, the frighteningly proximate and the distant; the still and the giddy. And the most important characteristic of all, the restless oscillation between wonderment and dread, between calm and terror’.
ReplyDeleteBurke reveals here the incoherent process that can be originated by a different understanding of what it seems to be pluralist issue in a society. In addition the existence of different statements about the subject makes it even more problematic, because everyone assumes a rigid position about the topic. The discussion nevertheless is important but senseless!
This post on beauty and morality like the previous posts seems to be slightly muddled.
ReplyDeleteyou state beauty is the essence of objects or forms.
I believe the idea of beauty is a device created by man with witch to measure value in objects. This is beautiful and this isn't beautiful etc.
This shows your statement to be fallacy, as it cannot maintain its validity without implying that part of a form or objects existence is provided by mankind. This further implies that without mankind's influence the object/forms state will change, which is obviously a falsehood.
"Can we live in a world where beauty exists in a third realm disintegrated from our presence and spirit!"
In answer to the above, no beauty cannot be disintegrated from our presence or existence as it is a construct of man not a universal truth.
You approach beauty as if it is an actual physical quality present in the world. I think this needs more thought.
You seem to approach Morality in much the same way. I will end this post with a question. How can we abuse morality if it is our own construct?
jo