Sublime part 2

471px-caspar_david_friedrich_032

We are getting out of the commodity culture where things gain their form and identity in its materiality, tangibility, or corporeality. We are getting into another type of culture now, which is immaterial, intangible, and incorporeal in nature –electracy, experience economy and so on.
Transformation has already been made in this era of experience economy; there, “function is out and experience is in; the operation of the object has shifted to the experience of the subject.” [Brandscape 17] It is a Copernican Revolution showing up again in post-commodity culture because it is to shift the axis of value from operation to experience, and the axis of thought from the object to the subject. Perhaps in this sense, Kant may be one who we should think of first as a key philosopher in this shifting moment because he made the same Copernican Revolution of the subject-object relationship by making a judgment not on the object but on the subject’s capacity to mediate between the ideal (or reasonable) value and the practical value.
In this Copernican revolution toward experience economy, Gravity in judging the aesthetic value of the experience economy will be put right on its entertaining value; Entertainment =pleasure ; it is a new object of aesthetic study in this era. Klingmann states that “in the experiential view of architecture, the relative success of design is measured in the sensation a person derives from it – in the growth it offers and the resulting pleasure it evokes.” [45]
My confusion revealed in previous e-mail was about this entertaining value of branding disaster; it can be catalysis for active experience economy, but it is questionable to accept the Entertainment as catalysis for writing disaster. “Can we really enjoy writing someone’s pain?” was the question.
But if I am allowed momentarily to speculate this issue in Kantian framework, then I guess I can embrace the entertainment in the discussion of disaster. First thing that comes in my mind is Kant’s notion of the sublime as a counter part to the beauty, which is the term for describing the feeling of awe, fear, and overwhelmness that are aesthetically still worthy to discuss. What we are dealing with is not the disaster itself, but the feeling of it. What we are branding is not the operation of disaster but the subjective experience of disastrous history. Consequently, branding feeling(or subjective experience) of disaster can be ethically acceptable.
Entertainment that we could have from experience economy is somewhat desirable, but at the same time, fearful experience is also aesthetically pleasurable object; thus we can embrace Entertainment as aesthetic essence of the experience economy.

Advertisements

~ by cjc128 on April 2, 2009.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: