A Kritik of Attempts to Stifle Beauty.

A Kritik of Attempts to Stifle Beauty.

You are not defined by your perception of your self alone, but all so by your perception of the World around you. The beauty* of Art is in that it divulges the disparate ambiguity of Human Perceptions and casts doubt upon the existence of a Noumenal, objective world. Ideology moves in the opposite direction, operating upon a lower beam entirely. Ideology seeks to unify all consciousness into one “whole”. Yet just as there is no evidence for the existence of a Thing in Its Self, so there is no evidence that such a Hegelian unity could be possible. The condition of Fascism is probably one of mutually assured isolation, wherein every individual perceives the world as he is inclined to, in isolation, but this isolation becomes narcissistic because it is presumed to be “The Truth”, and in the absence of free criticism it is impossible to challenge this delusion.

Why I have the right to call women beautiful:

1.       Art is Phenomenologically important. It is a mode of perception. Beauty, in its true sense, is the perception of a love object. It is not limited to one person, as in an obsession, all though such a peculiarity (as in a dream wherein a gray world is populated by only one coloured feminine figure) could be benign and sentimental. Without the perception of Beauty, a “complete” picture of Reality could never exist.

2.       Beauty is a perception of Love. Beauty is a style of perception wherein the distinction between Subject and Object dissolves. Peculiarities are seen to be unitive rather than divisive. Because they are peculiarities, a woman’s beauty will all ways be distinct, both from that of other women but all so from that of men in general (depending upon the observer), even in a world that is revered on the whole.

3.       Beauty is a feminine quality. This is not the same thing as a female quality, all though women are supposed to possess more feminine qualities. The integration of the Anima into the Male Ego, as in a symbolic reading of the Damsel in Distress archetype, will tend to create the perception of Beauty and the honoring of femininity, whereas the absence of this (in the case of an inflated ego responding to the tyranny of patriarchal ideology [and Feminism is entirely patriarchal]) will created turgidity and put all things at the proverbial “distance of objectivity as though she were an enemy to be shot”.

4.       The Ethos is self-contradictory. If the Collective is permitted to judge my actions without access to my psyche and motives, I should be allowed, with relatively little derision, to make observations of other’s aesthetic appearances, since phenomenologically the two are practically indistinct. IDEOLOGICALLY, they are severed from each other, but in its raw form it is one process: The perception of Reality as it Appears rather than a presumption upon its True, “hidden” (and probably non-existent) “Nature”.

5.       The perception of one’s own “Beauty”, in a Fascist state, cannot happen without the Collective. The only way to do this would be to reconcile Individualism with Collectivism by insisting that Aesthetics are entirely an individual phenomenon, rejecting collective judgements as not “truly” aesthetical. (Were they, they would be equally adequate.) Yet if the Society is not responsible for one’s self-image, then why criticize how others perceive you, if they can be safely presumed to simply be perceiving you NOT according to the oppressive trends of some sociological phenomenon but according to, in fact, their own aesthetic tendencies, entirely individuated except expressed in relatable language?

6.       To blame others for one’s own insecurities is irresponsible. Just as we depend, if any kind of Collectivity could exist at all, upon others to criticize us morally, even if ultimately we can be the solitary judges of our own characters, so it follows that the same principle can apply in aesthetics. Others can call you beautiful (to be treated with respect) or ugly (to be treated with derision, for that is what was intended usually), but ultimately these will be at your disposal in constructing your own self-mage.

7.       To value your self-image over the perceptions of others is Narcissistic. That is okay, but why should I join your Collectivist movement, lying down before your harsh moral imperatives, if I am to be barred from any true Solidarity of consciousness that can only come about whenever another Contradicts me?

I could go on.

Dm.A.A.