Accumulating

[Yamamoto]



comments from elsewhere that have struck me recently:



striking me: when you encounter work that, to borrow van gogh’s language, “hits the yellow high note,” it is at once made known to you that what you are responding to is an articulation of your aesthetic that you had yet to realize, something within that you are confronted with, and that once confronted you know that your task is to find a way to wrench it from your being and put it out in front of you. like that which you are looking at, but to have it come from you.



Hokenson also states: "The emphasis [in Japanese art] is no longer on resplendence but on simplicity, purity of line and form, spare vivid contrasting colors, delicacy of method, and suggestion of unstated essence ... The artwork therefore entails, radically requires, two moments in time, the moment of creation and the moment of affective recreation." This last is also very important. The greatest value of Japanese art is the way it stimulates the viewer's imagination: "the artist's economy of means and radical simplification operate suggestively to provoke, in the viewer, an affective experience—comparable to the artist's at the moment of creation—and an imaginative completion (of the image, locus, motion) in the mind." This is why Japanese art is so powerful. You are no longer a passive spectator being bludgeoned by academicians but an active co-creator, along with the artist, of what is being depicted. When you respond to a work of art like this, you are then able to enter into "a new order of reality."

If part of the problem with philosophy today lies in its professionalisation, we hope not to offend any of the contributors to this volume by saying that we consider every one of them to be amateurs in the true sense: dedicated and enthusiastic lovers of abstract thought, each engaged in adventures of ideas, each refusing to contain these adventures within strict formal or disciplinary boundaries. It should go without saying that, even if the two are rarely found in pure form, we favour de jure mad scientists with their bubbling conceptual cauldrons over career academics with their meticulously cautious conference papers.