The intangible

 The Intangible

©By Abdel Hernandez San Juan

   Written in English and translated to English 

by Abdel Hernandez San Juan

    The Intangible is the aesthetic; this is the proposal I will develop in this essay.        

    What another form must we adjudicate to the intangible than the aesthetic? the idea of an spiritual value? And it is not already and precisely, in its moment of intangibility a form of aesthetic? 

    Certainly, aesthetic might result in something intangible at least by moments. The beauty of a tree, a work of art or a woman fall out it, however, must we define it as another thing than as the intangible of a certain tangible? as when we said that something don’t have a prize? How might something as much intangible be equivalent to so much tangibility?. 

  In fact, a first form to understand the relation between aesthetic and intangibility is that evolved within saying that if we affirm about something it is intangible it is because its value is not as tangible. 

   In a quotidian activity between persons, in front of an art work, we must find aesthetic, meaning, time to contemplate what people are telling us, not as much hearing the said, but instead the how of the saying, meaning to perceive forms as the how of that contemplated.

    Such a time of contemplation might be about the images you have in front as when we made the time to visually contemplate the form in which it is being say, its formal beauty, or might be toward what is said, but if there is aesthetic it is because we perceive time in what is being said, meaning that we are perceiving not as much the said but the saying so contemplating the beauty of the how and its ethic. 

   Thus, to get ethic it must be aesthetic too, it must overall entrance to be a part of the intangible time of aesthetic allowing us to see the beauty of the how. Or it might result from the simple contemplation of ourselves in time under it.

   If I am making reference to a quotidian kind of example it is not by any other reason than to criticize the idea which affirm that of course there is aesthetic in art because they always have time to lost their time with intangible things.

    Thus to conterargue and at the same time shows that in the more simply quotidian activity, the love of a pear, the relation to our sons, the activities of job, if there is aesthetic it is because there is time to contemplate the how, to perceive the saying in the said, to be presents, besides.

   But the same happen with a work of art, a classical music we hear, a concert, a work of painting on the wall, a beautiful girl, if it results aesthetic to us it is because something under it returns ever to be intangible, although it was in a certain moment a tangible phenomenon it returned to be intangible.

   And this is the reason because we affirm that the concept of intangibility is also related with economy. 

   Undoubtedly aesthetic seems to be understand from economy as a form related with a certain intangibility meaning another kind of market, and by the same reason, what we thus understand as a symbolic and even suntuarious market. 

   Hence It is not only to sustain and affirm the existence of aesthetic under economy and the relations of offers and demands, but even to said that economy itself as activity is located and defined to be between the tangible and the intangible.

   The concept of economy in one of its antipodes have a relation with the idea of economizing and this relation is seen usually as related to the time we need to perception and aesthetic contemplation. 

  But the true is that indeed economy can’t avoid aesthetic, even in the economy of language and the text, this last must be again and again related to an exceedent, and such an exceedent return to be again and again, aesthetic and intangible. 

    In a few words, without aesthetic and intangibility economy is itself impossible. Let see it in publicity when it seems to become more obvious.

    A publicity spot, for example, as an announce, a poster, or as something printed on the body of the product, the printed publicity distributed and placed any were in the city, the commercial in television, effazising the sensuality of bodies, a cream, something to pleasure or enjoyment, a delighted food, something to entertainment, it will for sure accent the beauty.

   Thus beside paradoxically in the literal free market we want to sale that product as soon as possible at a hurry velocity, exchanged by its equivalent in prize something apparently without a time we need to aesthetic contemplation, there we will find how it is relative, it must be sale as soon as possible, but there an anticipated time for contemplation must be included so that as tangible as it should be as to have a prize as intangible it will be at the same time to enjoy in it aesthetic contemplation and to value it.

   Certainly when indeed in a last instance a publicity is not as a work of art as a highly exclusive symbolic form but a fast market product consisting about sailing it as fast we relates aesthetic contemplation under it as just a form of rhetoric seduction.

   However, to negate ourselves the enjoyment of this seduction of rhetoric evolved under the market competition to consumers and clients, is a way to negate ourselves that without aesthetic nothing as to identify its intangibility will be distinguished and as such now as consumers and clients it is a way to negate ourselves the need to codify as to define how the tangible level evolved within prizes in competition indeed belong to the true value of its intangibility.

   We must argue of course that toward seduction intangibility must be distorted under it, but if we don’t have the simultaneous level of intangibility communication in the market of the image, fashion and symbolic distinction, we can’t recognize the relation between value and prize.     

    In a few words aesthetic is nothing added or aditioned as exogenous to the economic chain, it is instead the true of value, this needed dimension of contemplation time leads us to distinguish value from prize.

   Whence in the relation between aesthetic and rhetoric we must said that publicity is not only seduction, the idea of seduction understand in that form presuppose on the one hand a product and on the other an added strategy of seduction with that product as two exogenous extrinsique things, the idea of encharments instead is developed toward the immediacy world of sensoriality and sensations of the body in which aesthetic play the role of reducing the separation as to provide an image as comfortable as possible of the world of image under the world of clients. 

   Within the anticipation of the time needed for aesthetic contemplation in publicity we must clearly find the ephicazy of markets under the economy of aesthetic and beyond that even the sensual idea that within consume we must have the time for such contemplation, if we contemplate how the cream is applied to on the feminine body or the sauce upon the spaghetti we are enjoying quality and exclusivity, however, publicity image, although use the time for aesthetic contemplation inside its efficacy about something that paradoxically must be sale as fast as possible, is nothing than at least in a first level as in our exclusive and suntuarious artifacts of high culture, related with intangibility.

    The prizes of the products must be more or less spensive, but will ever be entailed with a market related with offers and demands and as such we use to say that in publicity aesthetic contemplation stay subordinated to the merely rhetorical of that seduction. 

   Although the time of aesthetic contemplation is claimed as to pay attention on beauty and sensuality, an economy of utility seems to regulate it. 

   Thus, only the suntuarious market of high art and culture provided by symbolic exclusive objects seem to be more directly related with intangibility. This intangibility will ever leads us directly to aesthetic according to a series of excedents which are never exhausted under the objects itself or the products, but instead related with values.

    Hence a paradoxical ambivalence goes to the forefront, albeit all that objects of symbolic exclusivity are collected and entailed with feelings of possession of that intangibility under objects, indeed it cant never be fixed in the object as fetish since intangibility itself consist precisely in all that immaterial values outside the object which explain why offer and demand exist, why such spiritual values are alive, beside this is something that will ever be as aesthetic differentiated from the merely utilitarian and of any function entailed with necessity. With all this said we must affirm that aesthetic is nothing else but the intangible once in its sunturarious nature, the values, spirituals or entailed with time, to memory, culture, beauty or the product exclusivity leads us to the aesthetic of a time in extension increasing its exclusivity related with urban sensibility or to the sense of a certain age so that it can’t be reduced or exhausted by utility and necessity.

   Because utility and necessity, we must remark it, are forms to consume time in the product itself and whence it reduces intangibility. If something is utilitarian it is tangible and as such I will ever lost and lack intangibility again and again as many times as we consider it. 

   We must thus said that intangibility will ever be what leads aesthetic to the sensible and to a certain another economy of the intangible. 

   This another economy of the intangible paradoxically while on the one hand explain the relation between aesthetic and an exceedent –starting by the exceedent of time needed to aesthetic contemplation it self—always ready to be alive again, under such retuning to be intangible again the intangibility of so much tangibility suppose however a certain difference in front of all that which consume time in the object or aesthetic in rhetoric, whence we can firm again that such a fiduciary economy of intangibility leads us and our values to another economy.

  And although we don’t have to go so far to find that economy between us, including the economy of academic papers as this one full of intangible values or that one of the art works or of antiques and collections of cultural artefacts and material culture, aesthetic and sensibility will ever regulate and translate intangibility in a form that will go beyond a sense of the spensive, in fact, intangibility is not only entailed with the spensive when translated to tangibility, it must also lead us to philanthropy since intangibility entail all that which can’t have a prize so that must be without a prize or valuated by its spiritual values.

   It thus connects paradoxically the two poles of aesthetic, on the one hand its relation with an exceedent of time defined as time to contemplate beauty on the other to intangible values so irreducible to any tangibility including here of course that tangibility entailed with the object as fetish or understanded as a reified object.

   And I would like on this respect to offer some considerations on reifications. 

   When aesthetic leads us not to an open relation with the time of contemplation but instead to reified forms of taste and of culture, it experience the same which happen in its relation with rhetoric as to consume, it become in nothing else than in social forms of taste, as well as in cultural forms of appearance, meaning, ideologies of appearance which are nothing else than presuppositions according to which if accepted appearance are as thus under reified aesthetic forms then behind it must be a form of accepted official culture and as such it is narrow related with how aesthetic function in the conservative and ortodoxical side of society including the several forms through which paradoxically conservatives and orthodoxies sublime and mystify the aesthetic of the former already conservative old avant-garde. 

   In a few words an innovation that is not defined here and now in current time as truly deconstructions albeit it must be addressed as positives and good criticism to the modes of reification mechanism, ossification and fetishism of official conservative and orthodox culture, meaning deconstruction of “adocenamiento”  --the aesthetics of the official-- and canonization, can’t be expression of the alive avant-garde beyond if it was a former old one