A VIEW FROM HERE

part-perspective1 part-perspective2

What is the view from architecture? 

There is something utterly repellent about architectural aesthetics; something altogether disorienting not to say mendacious even dissimulating.
In aesthetic determination, there is more than a little evil. What is beautiful is necessarily determined by those who have command of the means of value. The determination of value, indeed the manufacturing of value is a power play, forged in the interests of someone, against the division of labour.

The beautiful is never, ‘for itself’, since the ‘for itself’ is merely the hypostatisation of a human figment. The beautiful is a propensity, not an essence. Objects attract value, they have no inherent value. Indeed objects hold to different projected values both synchronically and diachronically.

‘In the eye of the beholder’ is a statement of metaphysical import embracing a post Nietzschean perspectivism. 

‘In the eye of God’, constituted as an ontological concept, would be a means by which the  semiotic dualism of perception (signifier/signifie; phenomenon noumenon; appearance and essence), could be screwed to its sticking place; as it was at least for George Berkeley. It would be a means by which a projection of values might be centered,  laid to rest; ultimately controlled. The Beautiful would then be maintained by the existence of a ubiquitous essence. 

If there were indeed a universal perception, Beauty would, and of necessity,  be formed, consequent within it; but, and here’s the rub, it would be formed universally, for all time, always and already present. In the eye of God, Beauty would be self-evident. Self-evidently the beauty of things and actions in this world, no less than any hypostasised category of  ‘the beautiful’, which might preceded /confederate its conception, will  not, and never can be, neither universal, permanent nor enduring, no less than self-evident. George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne, barks up the right tree, but undoes himself by doing so. Far from a proof of essential being, the machinations of human perception establish the impossibility of a noumenal vision.

There are no ontological monads.


About this entry