Reasons for their stay are that they feel comfortable with the environment that surrounds the beach front, people who are at the beach are joyous and numerous activities to enjoy, and the fresh scent of the sparkly waters, make the visitors feel calm and pleasurable.
This gave rise to a basically mystical vision of the beauty of Godthat, as Umberto Eco has argued, persisted alongside an anti-aestheticasceticism throughout the Middle Ages: a delight in profusion thatfinally merges into a single spiritual unity. In the sixth century,Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite characterized the whole of creation asyearning toward God; the universe is called into being by love of Godas beauty (Pseudo-Dionysius, 4.7; see Kirwan 1999, 29).Sensual/aesthetic pleasures could be considered the expressions of theimmense, beautiful profusion of God and our ravishment thereby. Ecoquotes Suger, Abbot of St Denis in the twelfth century, describing arichly-appointed church:
Thus, when—out of my delight in the beauty of the house ofGod—the loveliness of the many-colored gems has called me awayfrom external cares, and worthy meditation has induced me to reflect,transferring that which is material to that which is immaterial, onthe diversity of the sacred virtues: then it seems to me that I seemyself dwelling, as it were, in some strange region of the universewhich neither exists entirely in the slime of the earth nor entirelyin the purity of Heaven; and that, by the grace of God, I can betransported from this inferior to that higher world in an anagogicalmanner. (Eco 1959, 14)
In general, and in closing, it is best not to act defensively when you find yourself confronted by someone asking questions such as the ones I mention in this essay. Often, these questions are aimed at making you take a defensive position. Unfortunately, if you do so you find that you have to defend yourself in regards to actions that you are perfectly free to conduct. Actions that, eventually, are nobodys business except your own. Actions that, furthermore, are perfectly legal but that your interlocutor may want you to feel are not. Unfortunately for them, what is illegal are things such as loan sharking, drug dealing or pistol-whipping a priest. It does not include image manipulation. You cant be arrested for doing it, you cant be taken to court and you cant be placed on probation or otherwise legally punished.
This conception has had many expressions in the modern era, includingin such figures as Shaftesbury, Schiller, and Hegel, according to whomthe aesthetic or the experience of art and beauty is a primary bridge(or to use the Platonic image, stairway or ladder) between thematerial and the spiritual. For Shaftesbury, there are three levels ofbeauty: what God makes (nature); what human beings make from nature orwhat is transformed by human intelligence (art, for example); andfinally what makes even the maker of such things as us (that is, God).Shaftesbury's character Theocles describes “the third order ofbeauty,”
What is art is another discussion altogether, one that I will address in a future essay in this series. For now, remember that the most effective answer to a question designed to stump you is the shortest, most direct and most honest answer you can possibly think of. In this situation it is a resounding Yes or a resounding No. It all depends whether you believe that your work is manipulated or not.
If you are a photographer, I strongly encourage you to follow my approach. If nothing else, it will free you and liberate your creativity. I know it does for me. Remember that you must be free in order to be an artist. If you do not feel free to create whatever your heart desires, then you might call yourself an artist, but you are not really an artist. Art is personal expression. It is the expression of your personality, of your vision, or your view of the world, of your perception of reality. Art is not doing something because you believe someone else may like it better than what you would otherwise do. Art, in short, is freedom.
So no, dont even give it a try. And if you do, dont expect me to care. I dont and I wont. I have already answered the question, and the answer is yes. Yes, I manipulate my work, change the colors and much more; and yes, I feel great about doing so; and yes, I am proud of it and have no remorse whatsoever; and yes, I have no intention whatsoever of changing this approach. In fact, this is my style. This is me.
The best solution for people who really do not like your work and who do not want to be bothered by the facts is to move on and go look at the work of an artist that they like. Therefore, if they ask you questions, there is no reason for you to feel threatened or act in a defensive manner. Just tell them the truth, and let them believe whatever they want to believe. Remember, if they dont like you or your work, they will never buy your work. And if they compliment you about your work, they are either lying or pulling your leg. So just say yes and let them be. That is what I do.
All the loveliness of colour and even the light of the sun, beingdevoid of parts and so not beautiful by symmetry, must be ruled out ofthe realm of beauty. And how comes gold to be a beautiful thing? Andlightning by night, and the stars, why are these so fair?
Only a compound can be beautiful, never anything devoid of parts; andonly a whole; the several parts will have beauty, not in themselves,but only as working together to give a comely total. Yet beauty in anaggregate demands beauty in details; it cannot be constructed out ofugliness; its law must run throughout.
which forms not only such as we call mere forms but even the formswhich form. For we ourselves are notable architects in matter, and canshow lifeless bodies brought into form, and fashioned by our ownhands, but that which fashions even minds themselves, contains initself all the beauties fashioned by those minds, and is consequentlythe principle, source, and fountain of all beauty. … Whateverappears in our second order of forms, or whatever is derived orproduced from thence, all this is eminently, principally, andoriginally in this last order of supreme and sovereign beauty.… Thus architecture, music, and all which is of humaninvention, resolves itself into this last order. (Shaftesbury 1738,228–29)
Almost everyone declares that the symmetry of parts towards each otherand towards a whole, with, besides, a certain charm of colour,constitutes the beauty recognized by the eye, that in visible things,as indeed in all else, universally, the beautiful thing is essentiallysymmetrical, patterned.