S
samranwa
Guest
Read " Confessions of a Secular Fundamentalist" By Mani Shankar Aiyer, Found it interesting as, an analysis of Kashmir, Ayodhya, Kashi, Hubli and Gujarat highlights the difference between the Congress and the BJP. The author does not try to hide the failures of the Congress as in the case of December 6, 1992 when "a secular government dithered between secular principle and communal compulsion."
"Ayodya, 6th December 1992" By P.V. Narasimha Rao (Who happens to be my favorite after Insider!) through its chapter VII made it clear as to what all was done on that unfaitful day. The author takes you to through the annals of Ayodhya... And gives you a feel as if you were there!
On the contrary, please visit http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/bjpwp/index.html to find the BJP view of it... Both mixed with the secular fundamentalism of MS Aiyer made it a reality for me to understand the TRUTH about Indian politics.
And though I have posted this on a different thread, I guess the right place for the matter would have been here....
The one I got is "Beauty and the contemporary sublime", by Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe, a faculty member (probably understating that) at Art Center. And the first thing I noticed in reading the introduction is his reference to Kant's distinction between Beauty and The Sublime. And his reference to how they are perceived as obsolete since Duchamp's use of ordinary objects out of context pronounced as art. Duchamp pretty much canceled the idea that beauty is a requirement of art, and also challenged the idea of an objective taste. As a result of his work, Kant's Critique of Judgment has lost much of it's authority. Gilbert-Rolfe is reaffirming Kant, but in doing so, instead of using seascapes to illustrate The Sublime and paintings to illustrate Beauty he's using fashion models and fashion photography. (I think I have this right. Haven't even really started the book yet.) The use of the model as Sublime while the photograph is Beauty provides a clear distinction between the picture of the beautiful girl and the beautiful picture of the girl - a distinction much lacking on most of the web.
The author also challenges the assumption that The Sublime is superior to Beauty. As the sublime is primarily a product of nature, and not made by humans, it's been attributed to God. Anything made by God must be superior to anything made by man, the thought process goes. If one takes God out of the equation, a humanist point of view would state the opposite. Beauty created by man is superior to an accident of nature, as it takes intent and effort. And one final point I'm looking forward to reading about is the question of sex and the assignment of Beauty and The Sublime to feminine and masculine realms. I don't understand what he's saying, but so far Gilbert-Rolfe has stated (reinforcing Schiller's definitions) that Beauty is feminine andThe Sublime is masculine. And he assigns much of today's sexual ambiguity to a male need for beauty. Keep in mind we're not talking about sexuality here, but abstract concepts.
Regards,
Sam.
"Ayodya, 6th December 1992" By P.V. Narasimha Rao (Who happens to be my favorite after Insider!) through its chapter VII made it clear as to what all was done on that unfaitful day. The author takes you to through the annals of Ayodhya... And gives you a feel as if you were there!
On the contrary, please visit http://www.hvk.org/specialrepo/bjpwp/index.html to find the BJP view of it... Both mixed with the secular fundamentalism of MS Aiyer made it a reality for me to understand the TRUTH about Indian politics.
And though I have posted this on a different thread, I guess the right place for the matter would have been here....
The one I got is "Beauty and the contemporary sublime", by Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe, a faculty member (probably understating that) at Art Center. And the first thing I noticed in reading the introduction is his reference to Kant's distinction between Beauty and The Sublime. And his reference to how they are perceived as obsolete since Duchamp's use of ordinary objects out of context pronounced as art. Duchamp pretty much canceled the idea that beauty is a requirement of art, and also challenged the idea of an objective taste. As a result of his work, Kant's Critique of Judgment has lost much of it's authority. Gilbert-Rolfe is reaffirming Kant, but in doing so, instead of using seascapes to illustrate The Sublime and paintings to illustrate Beauty he's using fashion models and fashion photography. (I think I have this right. Haven't even really started the book yet.) The use of the model as Sublime while the photograph is Beauty provides a clear distinction between the picture of the beautiful girl and the beautiful picture of the girl - a distinction much lacking on most of the web.
The author also challenges the assumption that The Sublime is superior to Beauty. As the sublime is primarily a product of nature, and not made by humans, it's been attributed to God. Anything made by God must be superior to anything made by man, the thought process goes. If one takes God out of the equation, a humanist point of view would state the opposite. Beauty created by man is superior to an accident of nature, as it takes intent and effort. And one final point I'm looking forward to reading about is the question of sex and the assignment of Beauty and The Sublime to feminine and masculine realms. I don't understand what he's saying, but so far Gilbert-Rolfe has stated (reinforcing Schiller's definitions) that Beauty is feminine andThe Sublime is masculine. And he assigns much of today's sexual ambiguity to a male need for beauty. Keep in mind we're not talking about sexuality here, but abstract concepts.
Regards,
Sam.
Last edited by a moderator: