Reaction to Edmund Burke's A Philosophical Investigation into the Origins of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful

"The other side of Sublime"

Edmund Burke would make a great, goth-music songwriter--it's really too bad that black metal, gothic rock and the like weren't around upon the writing of his book, "A Philosophical Investigation into the Origins of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful."

The reason I bring this up is because he seems to zero in on the balance of human pleasure and pain. Apparently, humans--when desiring another human--are constantly in pain. Burke states that despite the removal of pain, there is still no pleasure, and despite the removal of pleasure, there is no pain.
Burke argues that even though we might be relieved of pain, we aren't satisfied, and thus, there is no pleasure, and that the sublime is more associated with the pain itself.

His entire thesis is the focal point of the vast majority of emo, gothic rock and black metal bands out there (i. e. Charon, Evanescence, For my Pain, Avantasia, Mutiny Within...the list is endless).

To an extent, I can see that there is merit to Burke's thesis that without pleasure, there is still pain, or if not pain, indifference--which still isn't pleasure. In class, the example of a woman named Orlon was used--who apparently reconfigures her face constantly, without instigation or necessity--which is an example of a grotesque version of Burke's theory.

I counter with Heidi Montag--a reality TV star who went celebrity, and who had her status increased, ironically, for her addiction to plastic surgery. She was an already attractive woman prior to her reconfiguration--but for one reason or another, she felt it necessary to undergo ten plastic surgery procedures(in one day, I might add), plus who knows however many more. Why? Because she was aiming for that subliminal high--she wanted to walk that high-wire between the Twin Towers herself and achieve a fame that she had never reached before.

Needless to say--it worked. She now has about three movie roles coming up, as well as a slew of appearances on Late Night and Daytime television talk shows.

My argument to Burke's theory, that without pleasure there is only pain, is that even though a person may not be gleeful whilst wading in the shallows of indifference--they can still be content.

Couples break up constantly, people sometimes obsess over someone they find attractive to the point of falsely believing they are "in love," and something tragic might happen to a couple or even an individual--but somehow, they get over it. Despite the fact that moments of content may be few and far between, those moments are still void of pain.

The concept of "thinking of you" becoming absolute pain is, in my opinion, absolute BS.

I argue the contrary, that even though it might be difficult to accept that the one beautiful girl in the front of the class will never go out with the straggly-looking, poor guy, that guy will find comfort in "thinking of her," even if it is just fantasy, and even if it is for a short while. And although Burke believes this form of relief as something that is NOT sublime, I think--to many people, it is.

Reaction to Immanuelle Kant's "The Analytic of the Sublime"

Immanuel Kant "The Analytic of the Sublime"

Immanuel Kant brings up the idea of the Sublime--a word that I once thought had to do with some sort of slime substance before learning about it. Either that or a Punk Rock or heavy metal band...

What "sublime" really is, however, is something that can't be determined by the senses, only the mind. It also has the ability to make a person greater and bring them to an all-time high.
It seems to me as though it is instigated by a single experience or a series of awe-inducing experiences. Such an example includes witnessing a feat such as Tight-Rope-Walking the World Trade Center's Twin Towers(as witnessed in the "Man on Wire" DVD), or I'd even say being in the midst of a moshpit at a concert.
What quells the sublime, however, is fear. If there is fear involved in the act--be it fear-inducing to the participant or the viewer, then the sublime is lost.

The only objection to Kant's writings are that he believes art cannot be sublime. This, for me, is very hard to believe. Art is what inspires people to go to art school, it strikes awe in people, and it also possesses the ability to strike fear into onlookers. How do all those things NOT make them sublime?
In my experience(despite the many arguments on the Mens Bathroom wall in our Studios), certain Japanese anime is what inspired me to attend an art school and decide to partake in the creation of such work. In my college entrance essay, I was close to describing the style as "godly works of art," but my high school teacher wisely suggested against it.

If such artworks are not considered sublime, despite that they have such an effect, then what IS sublime?

Reaction to Susan Sontag's "On Photography"

Susan Sontag's "On Photography" counter-argues John Berger's claim that the camera doesn't capture reality--she states that it DOES capture reality, as well as the expression of the subject. Sontag also states "photographs may be more memorable than moving pictures"--which is an interesting statement, since it holds merit in certain situations, but not in others.

Photographs CAN be more memorable than moving pictures when the still picture is manipulated to make an impact and BE more memorable than a moving picture. For instance, still photos of traffic fatalities have more of an impact than moving films of fatalities because with film, it takes more time to register the tragedy. A perfect example is the "Red Asphalt" films that are shown in driving school--footage of medics removing fragments of a person's brain is shown before students learning to drive, however, the shot is so quick and jumpy, the students are left to ask themselves, "Those are brains?" In my experience, were I not TOLD that the person's brain was getting picked up from the ground, I would have never guessed. Now, had I been shown a still picture of the same incident, THEN I would have put two and two together much faster because there is less movement to distract from the main subject matter.

To counter-argue THAT, however, is the existence of the recent film, Avatar. Pictures of the film, apparently, don't do it justice. I have yet to see the film, but the recognition and box-office profit has proved one thing to me--the visuals are amazing...in full moving picture format on a large screen. This attests to the statement that photographs are NOT more memorable than moving pictures.

Here is my belief--that nothing can beat the actual memory of the experience. I could take as many pictures as I want of a concert of my favorite band, and have reminders forever. But then I'd be left with nothing but quick snapshots and memories of taking pictures at said concert. Meanwhile, actually being there and participating in all the shenanigans that go on at the concert(it's a form of heavy metal, usually), to me, is a much more rewarding experience.
The same goes for video footage, my Dad was equipped with a video camera wherever he went when I was small--the beach, Sea World, Disneyland, a local carousel, Mammoth Mountain...the list goes on. But whatever footage he has of these events do little to summon up what it was REALLY like to be there--the camera failed to capture the feeling I had as a toddler experiencing snow for the first time, simply because the thing wasn't on. The footage of the carousel with my little sister riding on it showcases nothing more than a toddler going around on a clanky old attraction with 50 other people on it.

The camera, whether capturing still images or moving images, does NOT capture reality, it captures a fleeting moment or two that serves as a mere REMINDER of the experiences showcased in the film, and nothing more.

Reaction to John Berger's "Understanding a Photograph"

John Berger, and his article "Understanding a Photograph," appears to want to take photography out of the "fine art" category, and although I agree with him on some of his points, I disagree that it shouldn't be considered "fine art." To begin, what exactly IS "fine art?" Some people believe that a sculpture made entirely of horseshoes is fine art, while others believe it is utter garbage. Some will look at a Cezanne painting and ask, "Why doesn't he just paint the normal way?" while others believe that he created a new art form. The list of subjective arts and art forms is endless--hence why it would be wrong to oust photography completely from the category of "fine art."

Certain photographs shouldn't be considered fine art--photographs of the simple family, or of small children with cake all over their faces, or even of a duck in a pond. Such incidences are just that--incidences that were decided to be recorded in a spur of the moment by the camera-holder, and should be looked upon as nothing more. But a great deal of the time, the photographer will actually be trying to captivate not only memories with his camera lens, but also MEANING.

Let's go back to that example of the duck in the pond--an amateur camera-holder will just point the lens at the duck and shoot, disregarding focus, composition and perspective. Meanwhile, a skilled photographer will take the time to adjust the lens, take into account the focus (will the foreground or background be blurred?), the lighting (should the lake be lighter or darker than it really is?), and the composition (should the duck be offset to the right, left or should it be from a ground-level view?). All these traits that a skilled photographer takes into account is directly correlated to the same mindset of skillful painters, hence why it shouldn't be ousted from the category of "fine art."