Audio Essay: Evolution of Aesthetic Judgment

This will be a short study of aesthetics. Of how aesthetic judgment can tell us more than ethical (moral) judgment, and how, unlike ethical judgment, it is not really subject to lying, or at least not to the same extent.

Nietzsche says:

“Beauty will save the world.”

He also says:

“All of life is a weighing of tastes.”

I have noticed that people are prone to lying when it comes to ethical judgment. Very often they lie, or speak from the position of a projected image of what they would like to be. This is understandable, since we all strive for ethical self-improvement, and the same is true of ethical judgment, which develops and refines itself within us. On the other hand, aesthetic judgment is different. The aesthetic standard is something we begin to accumulate very early, and the aesthetic frame of reference we build during adolescence and post-adolescence very often remains unchanged.

While, on the one hand, we all know, or think we know, the difference between good and evil, the difference between the beautiful and the ugly belongs to the realm of “subjective opinion,” and as such is much more sincere, because it gives the individual the possibility of finding something that his soul recognizes as “beautiful.” However, we also know that beauty has its gradations. Words such as kitsch and schund are not inventions of social constructivism, but definitions of temporal beauty — beauty that loses its value over time and is forgotten. The impermanence of trends through time points directly to their relative “beauty,” which is valid only from a particular perspective of time and space.

On the other hand, enduring beauty is something that has survived the tooth of time and still contains aesthetic values that resonate with the observer regardless of temporal or spatial context. Thus, for example, Faust or The Lord of the Rings resonate with audiences many years after their creation and still provide aesthetic consolation.

In what follows, I will try to define the progression of aesthetic judgment as I see it, and as I believe it has transformed through time and through the needs of the soul.

In early childhood, aesthetic judgment is defined through immediate aesthetics, that is, through taste. Children prefer one ice cream or another, one juice or another, one kind of food or another. As the ego and the self-image mature, this judgment expands to clothing and to the impression we give off in the world. During the school years, we begin to care about how we appear to others, and this is the second stage of transformation, one that for many remains in place for the rest of life. Alongside this immediate taste, we also begin to develop a taste for cartoons, which is a higher level of complexity than immediate taste, since it includes the theoretical senses (sight and hearing), although it usually begins with sight, as the first theoretical sense.

As childhood progresses and our interests grow, we move from cartoons to live-action films. This is the next level of complexity, one that necessarily includes the second theoretical sense, hearing, since plot — that is, what happens — becomes the central focus of our interest. Parallel with this interest in “artistic events,” our need for objective events also grows; hence, going out begins. Going out is the next level of complexity, and our aesthetic judgment then usually takes the form of comparing which party is better than another, or how the next party relates to the previous one. This is most pronounced during adolescence.

At a certain point, events in the form of nights out begin to feel repetitive, and we find ourselves searching for the next level of complexity. At that point, literature usually enters the scene. Although artistic in character, literature offers a stereotyping of events and characters. Characters are drawn into their purest stereotypes, while situations are translated into stereotypical patterns present in frequent social mechanics. Literature represents the first leap into true abstraction. When I say “true abstraction,” I mean the truth of reality that is not empirically visible, but can be understood and recognized exclusively through the intellect. Film, music, painting, theater, opera, ballet, and so on also offer this stereotyping, but in my view it remains most visible in literature. The additional mechanical act of “reading text” is somehow fundamental for the faculty that translates one sign into another — a word or a letter into an idea. This is, among other things, the first aesthetic leap between the young mind and the mature one. The collective, for the most part, never makes this leap and remains for life within the domain of aesthetic trend.

Once stereotypes become intelligible as autonomous wholes, we arrive at a point where we need a higher pattern that will bind stereotypes together, or at least connect similar groups of stereotypes. Here we come to the final aesthetic leap: the leap from stereotype to archetype. From story into religion, philosophy, and myth. Into impersonal collective events that we may call the symbolic image of the world.

Aesthetic judgment matures from the completely personal and immediate — the sense of taste — into a fully abstract, impersonal ideational configuration. From the individual toward the universal.

The post The Evolution of Aesthetic Judgment appeared first on The Architectural Mythologems.

Audio Essay: The Negation of Historicity

Further analysis, however quirky, has helped me understand (personal) relationship with work in a broader sense. I hope that the following interpretation may also assist others in finding a different perspective toward their work, one that is not solely defined by basic ideas.

This interpretation mainly refers to the movie Skyfall, though it is likely applicable to all Bond films.

Archetypal Patterns

Bond as a Man of Action – The Hero Archetype

Bond represents the archetype of the Hero, always ready to face dangers and moral dilemmas. His story in Skyfall portrays a fall, redemption, and return, passing through physical and inner conflicts, which makes him a complex hero. Action and instinct drive him through his missions, but this film adds depth to his character, making him a hero who faces his own limitations.

M – The Wise Old Woman – The Great Mother Archetype

M symbolizes the Wise Old Woman and the Great Mother, providing Bond with guidance and protection. As an authority figure and moral compass, she is someone Bond respects. Her death in the film has a strong emotional impact on Bond, as he loses a key maternal figure, forcing him to take on greater responsibility.

Death and Rebirth – The Transformation Archetype

In Skyfall, Bond undergoes the archetype of Transformation – his “death” at the beginning and eventual return symbolize a metaphorical rebirth. This cycle leads him through physical and emotional renewal, reexamining his identity and role, which is a crucial phase on the hero’s journey.

Reaching His Goals Mostly Through Women – The Anima Archetype

Bond’s relationship with women reflects his Anima, the feminine aspect of his soul. Women like Séverine often serve as catalysts for his actions, but they are also key to balancing his emotions and rational world. They open space for his introspective side, making them vital to his inner development.

The Shadow Archetype

Silva, the main antagonist represents Bond’s Shadow. He is a dark version of Bond, someone who has gone through a similar process but has chosen a different path. Silva personifies Bond’s inner fears – what he could become if he lost faith in MI6 and its authorities. As Bond’s shadow, Silva highlights the dangers of individualism without moral boundaries – the Lucifer (fallen angel) symbol.

The Father Archetype

MI6 and its institutional framework act as the father archetype, providing Bond with direction and tasks, offering him structure within which he operates. While MI6’s authority may sometimes appear cold and distant, it symbolizes a paternal figure guiding Bond through his mission, even when their relationship is strained.

Analysis of James Bond and What We Can Learn from His Relationship to Work

What caught my attention about James Bond (aside from all the well-known moments) is his relationship to his work. More precisely, the nature of his job, which differs from that of most people. The essence of his work is not about acquiring material wealth, which we can say is the nature of almost all jobs. For James Bond, his home or wealth does not matter. As a member of the secret service and a top operative, everything is provided for him. What retains importance is the Suit of Armor (his suit and watch) and his cars. Both can be seen as serving the function of defining his Persona. The suit is an exponent of a uniform (a certain mode of functioning), his watch represents precision, while the car signifies thought – its speed and elegance. These gadgets have their small additions and applications, but the core idea is deepening his purposefulness.

Bond’s Nature in Relation to Himself – The Negation of Historicity

Bond lacks historicity. He is not nostalgic in any way. Historicity, in his case, would be a crutch that would cause him to stumble. His conditional movement is directed straight toward the future. More precisely, he receives direction from MI6, the exponent of the Good (metaphysical, collectively supraconscious). This is a crucial point; Bond’s directions do not come from his personal consciousness (personal definitions of good), but from something greater, something universal. This idea is made explicit in Skyfall when Silva offers him the opportunity to “choose their own missions,” which Bond naturally declines. Although MI6 is depicted in the film as morally ambivalent (or even morally displaced), from an ordinary observer’s perspective, Bond still recognizes it as a higher moral authority.

This Good comes with collateral damage and has no sympathy for individual sacrifice, as long as the mission is accomplished – a reference to God (the metaphysical), who executes His Plan regardless of individual suffering. Bond is often in conflict with MI6 (the metaphysical) for this very reason: its lack of empathy toward individual suffering. His concern for the individual is what makes him human.

This type of conflict is something we all experience to such an extent that we often doubt the “authority” and its goals – just as we might doubt God’s plan. Skepticism is a healthy stance, and it must exist. However, faith must also exist, a faith that follows this “Greater Good,” even if we do not fully understand it.

Note: Suspension of disbelief – we interpret MI6 as it is portrayed in the film, as an objectively “greater good,” and not as a human construct full of anomalies and personal pretensions, as it probably is in reality.

On the Conditionals of This Kind of Work Relationship

Ancient Greek philosophers argued that one must rise above existential problems to engage in philosophy (higher matters). One must finish with the “lower” to deal with the “higher.”

That is exactly what James Bond does. He has finished with material accumulation and serves exclusively the “greater good.” This way of functioning puts him in an instrumental position, opposite to the autistic urges for repetition, ergo, security. His life is on the line at every moment, and each day could be his last. At the core of his actions is almost absolute Action, without contemplation or reflection on past experiences. There is no nostalgia, no desire for the old days or past events. Each day is a New Sun (Heraclitus), taken to the limit of the absolute. Thought (contemplation or conclusions) is reduced to almost instinctual (intuitive) action. He doesn’t need to reflect and conclude, he knows. Reflection is part of analysis (the material), intuitive guidance is part of instinct (the metaphysical, or already understood – conceptualized – part of a larger pattern that is not deduced but is self-evident). Intellectual muscle memory. Bond is not historical, even in thought. His identity does not derive from a historical mosaic of experiences but from active aspects that lead to his Goal, and that goal is established by an “other” – the Collective Supraconscious – the Good.

The post The Negation of Historicity appeared first on The Architectural Mythologems.