Tesfahun Kebede Frash Adash 33 at Tobiya

Poetry faces challenges with beauty because we no longer consider beauty to be a meaningful form of knowledge. Though it is. Beauty inserts a framework for constantly imagining what we do not know into the creative realm. This assertion contradicts Shelley’s definition of poetry, which holds that creativity transforms knowledge into imagination, according to which poetry is the location where we “imagine that which we know.” Nowadays, we generally don’t respond to beauty—at least in critical literature—for a variety of reasons, including the instinctive perception that beauty transcends such translation. We are unable to quantify the knowledge that Shelley’s imagination transforms into beauty or deconstruct that beauty back into its knowledge and imagination-based constituent parts. This is due to the non-conceptual nature of beauty. Although we have an implicit understanding of the non-conceptual nature of artistic beauty, we haven’t really progressed in the development of sympathetic theories that will allow us to talk about beauty in these terms. Because we still conceive of beauty mostly in Shelley’s terms, we believe that the aspects of beauty that are uselessly personal and uncommunicative are those that resist being translated back into knowledge. In actuality, they are what beauty “knows,” and maybe most significantly, they are what we do not yet know. Beautiful forms are strong, inventive constructions that offer an impenetrable representation of the unknowable. As a result, beauty is perpetually serious, predictive rather than descriptive, dynamic rather than fixed, and beneficial. Poetry in particular struggles with the fact that beauty cannot be explained in explanatory words, especially in an abstract language like English. The language used in poetry is extensively recognized for its conceptual and communication capabilities in other contexts.

Related Articles

Back to top button