Brady DeHoust -- A Humble but Sincere Query

Thus far our class has discussed quite in depth the concepts of beauty, ritual, religion, dance, art, the sacred, and the transcendent, among other things. "Ritual and art stem from a common impulse." Fascinating. "Most primal ritual (from which eventually evolved what we now know as art) has a religious significance." Splendid. "Beauty serves as a reminder or gateway to something transcendent." Cool. Harrison has showed us that art is not imitation but the recreation of an emotion, feeling, or encounter, as is religious ritual. Van der Leeuw has shown us how art has evolved from the significance which made it sacred (or sacredness which made it significant) into a more empty and profane performance. We've discussed involvement and spectatorship ("where ritual ends and art begins").

But there is one significant question which I feel compelled to ask: to what end? I realize that this is a bold, perhaps even brash question to pose, which could be interpreted as disrespectful or condescending. That is far from my intentions. The syllabus says that our blogs ought to contain "questions and answers to questions," and as I process the myriad of phenomenological data which has largely constituted the class thus far, I feel that this one, the why question, is necessary in order to continue.

Our conversation thus far has been extremely centered on religion in regards to beauty, art, and ritual. Why? Are you, Kip, trying to assert that beauty is fundamentally tied to the sacred, that this is factually the way things are? Because that seems like a bold claim in a society and a department where everything, and religion above all, is up for debate. Are you posing one possible theory in preparation for presenting a dialectical counter-theory? Are you sharing personal views? Are you asking us to agree, to disagree? If the latter, will you give us resources to help formulate a counter-arguement (or at least to support a more diverse artistic/religious experience which may lead to more phenomenologically diverse viewpoints). 

Why are we studying beauty and art at all? For its own sake? I understand presupposing the value of the beautiful, but so far we seem to be engaging it based on a relatively narrow framework in a linear constructions (at least that seems to be what Van der Leeuw suggests). Will there be efforts to view beauty and art more holistically? Is this viewing it holistically, and I simply don't see it yet?

The questions go on. Perhaps I am missing the point, and I don't want to miss the point. Hence the questions. But I am caught between the apparently open-ended subject (beauty) and apparently laissez-faire structure of the class (with an emphasis on exploration and reflection) on the one hand, and the apparently narrow focus which the class has taken thus far. Are we exploring art and beauty holistically or are you instructing me in the origins and nature of art and beauty as a sacred/religious phenomenon? Again, I mean no disrespect by raising these questions, I only desire some clarity. Once I feel that I have a firmer grasp on the telos of this course and the reasoning behind this methodology, I feel that I will be able to contribute more soundly and significantly in the blogs, discussions, and writing assignments. 

So there are a few questions. I suppose that's not a bad way to start off a semi-academic blog. Hopefully future posts will contain answers, as well.