Is it possible to articulate an aesthetic of the beautiful today, at a time when what Kundera’s character, Sabina, describes as the ‘uglification’ of the world, has become pervasive, on the one hand, and when, on the other, social reality has become so complex that the harmonies required by the beautiful,
conceived of as belonging within aesthetic space, can no longer be systematically justified in aesthetic terms? The answer given to this question here is negative, and goes hand in hand with the claim, put
forward by Lyotard, that after Auschwitz one can no longer cling to the metanarrative of the universal emancipation of humankind. Similarly, it is argued, although beauty may still be experienced at an everyday, intuitive level, at a reflective, aesthetic-theoretical level it cannot be systematically sustained, given the complex, interrelated character of historical events, culture and social reality. It is further
pointed out that Lyotard’s claim, that the aesthetic of the modern as well as the postmodern amounts to an aesthetic of the sublime, albeit of different kinds, casts light on the reasons why, today, when one is
surrounded by so much ugliness in the form of pseudo-beautiful kitsch, one cannot escape an aesthetic of the sublime, and several artists’ work is alluded to, to substantiate this argument.
AFRIKAANS
Is dit vandag moontlik om ‘n estetika van skoonheid te artikuleer, in ‘n era wanneer wat Kundera se karakter, Sabina, die ‘verleliking’ van die wêreld noem, alomteenwoordig geword het, enersyds, en
wanneer die sosiale werklikheid so kompleks geword het dat die harmonie wat deur skoonheid vereis word (wat veronderstel is om tot estetiese ruimte te behoort) andersyds nie meer sistematies in estetiese
terme geregverdig kan word nie? Hierdie vraag word negatief beantwoord, en gaan hand aan hand met Lyotard se stelling, dat daar sedert Auschwitz nie meer aan die metanarratief van die universele
emansipasie van die mensdom geglo kan word nie. Daar word verder geargumenteer dat, ofskoon skoonheid steeds op alledaagse, intuïtiewe vlak ervaar kan word, sodanige ervaring nie sistematies gehandhaaf kan word nie, in die lig van die komplekse, onderling-verbandhoudende aard van historiese gebeure, kultuur en sosiale werklikheid. Daar word verder aangetoon dat Lyotard se bewering, dat die estetika van sowel die moderne as die postmoderne ‘n estetika van die sublieme is – weliswaar van uiteenlopende aard – verduidelik waarom ‘n mens vandag, te midde van soveel lelikheid in die gewaad van pseudo-skone namaakkuns (‘kitsch’), op ‘n estetika van die sublieme aangewese is, en daar word na verskeie kunstenaars se werk verwys om hierdie argument te staaf.
