> Yet aesthetics persists with the idea that 'beauty' is somehow central to
> all art.
>
Maybe there is something roughy comparable in the response of sexual
attraction or excitation. I think it is a common for men -- and women too --
to be
more sexually drawn to someone who is not generally accepted as the most
"beautiful" person in the room. I have Hollywood friends who have remarked on
the
"flawless beauty" of Nicole Kidman, but agree she is not as sexually exciting
as
many "less perfect looking" women out there.
In other words, just as mere "beauty" does not cause the most sexual arousal,
it does not necessarily cause the strongest "aesthetic experience".
Similarly, the responses vary from one sensibility to another. That is, it's
misleading
to claim anyone is in some absolute way "sexy", and a second person is not.
Agreed -- this does not seem to apply to the most unfortunate examples of
either people or "works of art". There are some that would seem to be unable to
stir any excitation at all.
(I'll cite my refraining from jumping on the vulnerable language of Derek's
remark. Similarly I hope listers will look past my deliberately kitchen-table
English to the idea it is obviously trying to examine.)
**************
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
