I just got finished replying to a comment Kaz Maslanka made about my Entry 184. It got me thinking about my definition of art. I want it to be “that which gives (or intends to give) aesthetic pleasure. “ My only problem with this is that I’ve never gotten it as clear in my mind as I’d like what aesthetic pleasure is. I know it includes sensual (fundacep- tual in my theory of psychology I believe) pleasure–the visual pleasure of a sunset, say, or the auditory pleasure of a Beethoven symphony– but what about the pleasure given by a good novel? That’s only sensual to a small degree; it’s mostly narrative.
First thought this morning was to modify my definition of art to “that which gives sensual or narrative pleasure.” But then I realized a way out: I can not inappropriately call the anthroceptual (people-centered) pleasure (like love or friendship) which is the main, perhaps only, narrative pleasure, a sensual pleasure. Ergo, art for me is any man-made object that gives, or tries to give, aesthetic pleasure, the latter being defined as either fundaceptual or anthroceptual (sensual or narrative) pleasure.
Another triumph for my taxonomy that I gotta put in my ear plugs to avoid being deafened by the world’s acclaim for.
Oops. Add sagaceptual pleasure, a third kind of sensual pleasure, to the above. Narrative is mainly devoted to supplying that. It’s the pleasure of reaching a goal. And, alas, I now realize that my definition is still not complete, for I’m still not sure how to treat objects which cause aesthetic pain. Tomorrow I’ll discuss that.