Chapter Text
The aesthetic imperative to resist in every personal respect down to one's ontological potential is merely the symptom, yet nor are the specific causes for each or any such personality of our interest, for their domains of beauty lies too far off.
Such an imperative simultaneously cognates with the structural or methodological tendency to systemically (or not so systemically, if "artistically") renormalize freedom out of the calculations; what that failed to be normalized gains from here a mystical status, as foreign and quite as deadly to the art as a cancer.
Taking the opening anecdote in The Circle Closes which essentially referred to that forbidden, damned intelligence gained at the renunciation of artistic jouissance; it is this practice (but how, and why?) that leads art into artistic asceticism, a style defined by being too well-defin(able); eventually what none other than a madness for depression, an ideology about nihilism. As without desire, without the split comes no subject it is but natural for the humanitarian to lock itself unto the deadlock of desire, to phenomenologize the split and therefore remain split apart as an imperative...
That is our context, i.e. the language in which miracles operated, which are, following their generative obligation to be comprehensible, utilizable and generally open to engineering: taking form in coincidences, self-fulfilled or not. Coincidentally then the split is maintained without much fuss as both sides happens to be an ontologically continuous ethical entity subject to much further splits that occur on not-so-ideological a humanitarian level.
The obsession and despise of artistic enjoyment is relatively uncommon but entirely conceivable for any major victim of art (see the artist in pick-up, for example) yet being exploited so (as a victim or not) would structurally incorporate in them a spectacular sensitivity for, for the least, good taste, so that a viable solution would be to tame the split with the other side of the artistic imperative, to fool a way out of it; as it's obvious that humanitarian art is in itself quite an oxymoron, that there's nothing less humane a human can do besides in the realm of art, and that the ideology is only probable as an objective.
Desire most readily constructs itself around a core of neutral justification that is in effect, like all coordinates, a void in itself: simplicity here is but an obsessional existence in which the notion of freedom falls back into a mere attempt to systemize the multitude of voids into one: yet, in this case, with that being forbidden: not into (the artistic) oneself but an-other, the absolutely inhuman humanitarian. In this case rather neutrality is specifically utilized as the prime methodology to systemically refuse-to-answer by sabotaging the possibility, i.e. the language of questioning. The maintenance of neutrality is then a matter of conservation and restoration than creation.
...And here comes the problem with taste, which is that of (none other than) standards: taste is the no-longer-visible coordinates to language; that a change in taste is always a redistribution of weights in language -- such that re-standardizing notwithstanding a chance of regenerating the language anew is (utilized as) a methodology to destroy language by its dialectic mechanism.