the occult logic of aesthetic intellect

8/14/2019 The Occult Logic of Aesthetic Intellect

1/23

THE OCCULT and ELUSIVE LOGIC OF AESTHETIC

INTELLECT by Paul Henrickson, Ph.D. tm. 2007 1975, 2005

Since the definition of art is as broad as to include theproducts of the carder, the dyer, the scribbler as the worksof Michelangelo, Rubens and Rembrandt by what other word-symbol might we identify the productive results of a carderfrom those of Rembrandt?

My present guess would be that at the point when theappropriate mechanics of the job have been most

satisfactorily completed and indications of other qualities stirour senses we are, then, involved with the arcanephenomenon of the aesthetic.

Those who have struggled to comprehend a foreign tongueand to assemble a rudimentary structure out of mysterioussounds may recall that joy of sudden comprehension whenthe totality of the language breaks through to consciousness.Such can be the experience when the dawn of realizationlights up the once obscure relationships extant within a workof art.

These aesthetic relationships may have nothing to do withthe facts which ordinarily concern the historian, although, Ibelieve, they aught if the historian would like to beconcerned with more than with the transmission of subjectmatter and the like from one period in historic time toanother.

It is my contention that had scholars systematized sensualdata, evidences of which are in every work of art that aperson such as Van Meegeren would never have been ableto con so many experts. On the other hand Van Meegerenmay have exemplified Aristotles definition of art as acapacity to make, involving a true course of reasoning,however I doubt that UNLESS one accept that a copy is the


2/23

same as the original. Aside from the fact that such a feet isimpossible. If one of two is original and one is original andthe other a copy , the copy cannot be the original, BUT thecopy might fool someone into thinking it is the original. In

such a case, however, the rules followed in the making of theoriginal were not the rules followed in the making of thecopy. The copier followed the rules laid down by the one whomade the original. The maker of the original followed,perhaps not rules at all, but intuitions, and therein lies all thedifference.

If what Van Meegeren accomplished might then be called artwhat then might be the difference between a Van MeegerenVermeer and a Vermeer Vermeer? Obviously, the

distinctions to be made relate to


3/23

Jan Vermeer: The Red Hat


4/23

Van Meegeren: Christ among Disciples I find it impossible to believe that

anyone with the slightest knowledge of Vermeers work could possibly havemistaken work such as this as a genuine Vermeer.

moral as well as aesthetic matters. The art marketencourages the development of talented and frustratedartists willing to hood-wink an insensitive and greedy publicincluding the frauds who direct some prestigious galleries. IfI had less respect for the legitimate functions of art I wouldapplaud every instance where one clever enough to

accomplish a really convincing fake and thereby makes anarse out of the legitimate maker whose pride inaccomplishment is mocked and made vain.

The reality that makes the difference is that in the one thefocus is on technical appearance and in the other in theinspired spirit it is up to the observer to tell them apart. ButI am too committed to that exciting world, that world ofgenuine image making we moved into some two or three

hundred years ago, no, that would be incorrect to say, wehave actually been there all along. It is only that at timesthere seems to be more genuine artists functioning than atother times, but in between times and concurrently, we mustdeal with the Pharisees.


5/23

The most vital issue in a matter such as this is the one thatrevolves around distinguishing the real from the appearanceof the real. The most substantial reason for doing this ratherthan accepting the ruthless degradation of the genuine by

imposters, artists, dealers and authenticators is the rescueof the gentle, subtle and fragile values inherent in theoriginal work.

Although substantial that value is elusive and difficult toidentify. It has something to do with the unique place anartist occupies in history and in locale. These factorstogether with the unduplicatable individuality of the personinvolved indicates the real job of the critic and the historian.Evidences of these qualities is what should concern us and

the fact that men like Van Meegeren and Emile de Hory areable to fool a great many people tells us that they are notmerely clever at deception and mindless as to the rights ofothers to their heritage but indicates also that those whobelieve them do not know as much of their cultural history asthey should.

When a man with genius generates substance from theunknown and offers this product to the public some few inthat public may wish to translate that material intosomething on the order of the original, a simpler version,if you will, that less sophisticated people may betterunderstand it . Unfortunately this system doesnt work thatway. A complex subject does not become easier tounderstand if its elements are made more simple but thecomplex might become easier to understand if the variouselements are considered separately and then incombination.. The observer, the critic, must move toward theobject in steps that are gradual enough for him to eventuallyunderstand the totality of the mechanism. That is onereason why one individual may spend his lifetime studyinganother individual. Person A becomes an expert on person


6/23

B and the rest of us must decide how to apply theinformation learned to a greater body of knowledge.

Copyists such as Van Meegeran and Emile de Hory do not

help the world to understand the artists they plagiarize.They steal from us and deprive us from gaining anunderstanding that would make our lives more complete andmore meaningful.* The real value of the work of art isinherent in that work. The real value is not the price tagplaced on it. But it is the focus on that price tag which makesthe business of the copyist so lucrative. If it is important forus to understand how the creative mind works having to dealwith the mass of fakes before we can get to the real stuffonly wastes our time and our energies.

In the case of Van Meegeren it is, from my point of view,almost unbelievable how so many people could possiblyhave been misled into accepting as genuine Vermeer whatthat man offered. I can only suggest that those who were somisled had no right being in the positions they were in,making the judgments they did and, thereby, misleadingwhole generations of people. However, since a portion of thetime Van Meegeren was making fake Vermeers and others

and sold them to high ranking Germans during the Nazi erasome forgive him.

How then does the scholarly expert distinguish the genuinefrom the bogus? In addition to the physical properties of thework itself, such as the paper, the canvas, the chemicals andpigments, there are also internal evidences with which thescholarly detective must be concerned. Such an expert reallyneeds to know how a work of art is created. In spite of thefact that many of these experts spend day after day andyear after year in the presence of the genuine they may stillbe unable to tell a fake from the real thing.

These evidences may include such characteristics as theartists personal graphic behavior, something of the samesort of evidence a graphologist uses in identifying


7/23

handwriting, or an analytical psychologist who searches outthe meaning of repeated symbols, or behaviors in theircontexts.

With a visual artist there are certain behaviors that becomemore obvious with study but remain subliminally available tothe unsophisticated or casual observer. These graphicbehaviors may record the unconscious preoccupations of theartist, and as such, are more like the intonations in speechthan they are like words, words which are, generallyspeaking, culturally agreed upon sounds bearingpredetermined meaningssounds that denote as opposed tosounds that suggest.

We are actually dealing with a complex analysis here. Thereare several levels of communication in a work of art. Thesubject matter of the work if there is a subject matter maybe the most obvious. It certainly is the main characteristicdiscussed in most courses in art appreciation and history.

If we take, for example, Leonardo da Vincis Mona Lisa, weare aware that we have before us a portrait of a woman, aparticular woman. Through some contemporary written

reports we know something about this woman. We also knowsomething about the artist through similar sources and othergraphic evidences.

There are many observable details inherent in the work thatindicate to us that Leonardo achieved a very high order ofdirect observation of a physical realityphysiognomy. Asadmirable as that is, we have additional evidence thatcertain psychological characteristics of the artist, forexample, his concern for a certain level of personal secrecy,may have influenced the subtle and gentle shadings heachieved in the face of the model. The secrecy I have inmind may be seen in the fact that he had kept a diary thatcould only have been read if held opposite a mirror. Thisindirect approach to recording may also be seen in the reportthat he had hired musicians to play while he created the


8/23

portrait under discussion. The job of the musicians was tokeep the model from becoming bored, tense, restless ornervous as a result of having to sit for long period of timeuntil the portrait was finished. The delicate modeling we see

in the face may also be a result of the artists approach torendering the subtle changes in construction. This may alsobe seen in his approach to designing the mechanics of amilitary tank or in studying the action of water.


9/23


10/23

Leonardo de Vinci: Mona Lisa

Leonardo da Vinci: Armored Car

I am sure that e all know of portraits that seem to confrontthe observer directly and had he wanted to I am equallycertain that leonardo could have achieved that sort ofbriskness. By and large, however, his subjects avoid a direct

confrontation with the observer. This obliqueness of glanceis matched by the sfumato technique mentioned aboveamanner of grading values from light to dark, which lends asubtle and gentle appearance to the subject. It is, indeed,quite possible to imagine that this particular leonardesqueaesthetic affected his personal relationships and accountedalso for the admirable reputation of being a gentle man.

The brief discussion above seems to relate the

characteristics of the work to the characteristics of the artistand that, I believe, is an essential understanding necessary ifan adequate criticism is to be constructed. The results,however, of that procedure will often produce an art criticismunacceptable in most of the approved art venues, butwelcomed in those which stress psychiatry. Yet, myinvolvement in that approach has convinced me that without


11/23

it we will not discover what the real nature of the creativeact is, or why the effort exists.

It may appear, at first, that Leonardos interest in

mechanical fine-tuning and in designing instruments of warcontradicts this claim of gentleness. However, if one viewsthe problems of technical articulations in a variety ofstructures, regardless of the uses to which those structuresare put, the comparison between the finely articulatedcomponents of the Mona Lisa and Leonardos design for aland tank or parachute may not be difficult to accept.

Leonardo da Vinci: sketch for a parachute

The fine arts and the speculative sciences, Aristotleinforms us complete human life. They are not necessary,except, perhaps for the good life. They are the dedication ofhuman leisure and its best fruit. The leisure without whichneither could come into being nor prosper is found for manand fostered by the work of the useful arts.


12/23

This analysis might be extended to suggest that the productsof leisure might be returned to the tool shed of the usefularts. Society has done that fairly well, I suppose, with some

of the products of scientific enquiry, however, it does seemto have been so successful in returning to the grass roots thediscoveries, awareness and sensibilities of humanitiesstudies or the creative arts.

The result of this failure is that the world of the artist, thecommercial gallery, the state art museum, the privatecollector, the all-influential art critic are now riddled withirrelevancies, intellectual dishonesty and graft. The graftoften takes the form not unusually, of the artist making

himself available for erotic dalliance in exchange for a goodcommentand the gender or the sexual orientation of thecritic makes no difference. Pity the collector who has worksin his collection works that attribute their fame to anexplosion of someone elses semen. How does the collectorreconcile the various pertinent facts regarding a particularwork in his collection when there is something he doesntknow about its origins.

The various published comments regarding an artists lifestyle, political views, opinions by experts, and his alcoholism,all of thisbaggage of notoriety is, surprisingly, pertinent to the valueof his work. in very telling ways. In theory, an observantcritic should be able to objectively describe the work of anartist and arrive at a profile that should match one arrived atby an observant sociologist with all the living facts at hisdisposal.

Visual images, some of them esoteric have served toaugment a sense of cohesiveness. Family shields, coats ofarms, flags, crosses, stars, and moon have been used toremind the observer of some things he shares with others asa member of a group. Although such emblems may bevaluable especially to the leaders of such groups, they can


13/23

also be attractive and fun, the level of communication iselementary.

It is my suspicion that an entire civilization may be brought

to a highly sophisticated level of visual awareness by thetechniques available to us now.

What value would such a structure of visual culture have?Although negatively expressed, one positive influence mightbe the decrease in the incidents of works of art being viewedprimarily as objects of monetary investment with theirattendant tax shelters. The incidence of increments of theeconomic value of art objects being created by the rarity ofthe object, or the creative insights the artist may have built

into it, would increase, and those created by themanipulation of uninformed opinion buttressed by socialdemands (not need or insight) and a fear, on the part of theconsumer, of being thought ignorant would decrease. Thesewould be most treasureable effects.

Additional positive values of a more sophisticated visualperception would be the development of a language ofwords approximately equivalent to the structure of a visual

logic. The associated development of these disciplines mightprovide us with a community of acceptable symbols fromamong which more speculative visual researches might beundertaken.

One of the dangers of systems which have been generallyaccepted, various university disciplines, for example, is thatdivergent endeavors are not encouraged. One of thedangers of the over-riding presence of a governingphilosophy is that what is produced may lack the helpfulcontacts with other disciplines.

Considering the nature of human nature the answer to thevexing problem of determining value symbolized in currencyas opposed to the inherent value of the work perceived by


14/23

the viewer and which encourages the development ofaesthetic insights is difficult to solve.

Certainly another aspect of the problem of a generally

elevated aesthetic awareness is the coalition of he narrative,symbolic and romantic preferences for visual stimulationwith those political and commercial interests more thanwilling to provide the unchallenging but provocative fare.

Although this kind of need can be manipulated bytechniques of socialization, advertising, group psychologyand the like, these pressures and assaults on belief systemsperform an injustice on the individual. Such procedures donot teach the individual how to see, they merely condition

him to behave.

I see the function of the teacher, the educator is a betterterm, and the operations of the critic as crucial in mitigatingthe crystallization effect of socio-psychological pressurestowards a conformity of vision and perception. In addition,dialogue is essential to the development of perceptualflexibility. This dialogue may take place between artists,artist and non-artist, critic and artist, teacher and critic,

consumer and artist or any other combination of individuals.

Aquinas indicated that even in speculative matters there issomething by way of work; e.g., the making of a syllogism,or a fitting speech, or the work of counting or measuring.Hence whatever habits are ordained to suchlike works of thespeculative reason, are, by kind of comparison, called artsindeed, but liberal arts in order to distinguish them fromthose arts which are ordained to those arts done by thebody, which are, in a fashion, servile, inasmuch as the bodyis in servile subjection to the soul, and man, as regards hissoul, is free. On the other hand those sciences which are notordained to any such work, are called sciences simply, andnot arts.


15/23

Works done by the body is an expression which, itself, isworth, perhaps, some speculation. What does the body do?How does it perform? Why does it perform? One speaks ofthe art of love. Is it possible that the mention of the art of

love making is untended to convey something beyond andmore refined and respectful than rape? Certainly one mighthope so. The body also moves, that is, it locomotes fromone point in space to another either in whole or in part.Motion, then, which is something more or less than practicalsuch as dance, mime, or gesture supportive of innuendo inspeech may be an art.In order to understand the extensions of meaning suggestedby Aquinas, what is it that one might consider about the artof painting, or sculpture, or music? Is it sufficient or even

possible for Aquinas or Aristotle to recognize that in the actof making itself there may be touchstones of spirit thatinform the characteristics of the practical result? Even insuch work as pottery, cabinetry and iron mongering thereare, or can be, moments where there is a combination ofboth science (knowledge) and art (informed intuition). Howwould the definitions of these two philosophers function withsuch products as a ceramic piece by Miro or a copy of aVermeer by van Meegeren?

Juan Miro, Nuit

Obviously both products would be dismissed if thesedefinitions operated inflexibly, although it might be difficult
http://popupf%28%27closeupnoframe%27%2C%27d0115013892%27%29/


16/23

to justify the action. Would a closer look at the productsindicate that the example of the minor art of ceramicsstood higher in some scale of values than the work of theimposter van Meegeren? It would seem so to me, and, in

practice, it often seems so whether or not the fine artexample is a fake in the sense that the van Meegeren worksare fakes.

If we do not care to split philosophical hairs we mightassume that Aristotle and Aquinas recognized the interactionamong the arts of knowledge and intuition despite the factthat physical labor was involved. However, they might notbe willing to admit that painting and music and sculpturemight also be liberating as are those aspects of literature

to which Aquinas had reference when he mentioned themaking of a syllogism, or fitting speech. I shall try to makemy point by making a syllogism; 1) a work of art is a productor a function pf a product which engages the observerssenses; 2) an aesthetic experience engages at least one, butoften several of the observers senses.3) a work of art is,therefore, an aesthetic experience.

This intellectual structure, however, doesnt touch the

question of quality and, consequently, it fails utterly toengage the crucial matter of the works appeal to theobserver, this matter has a vast range from abhorrence tofanatic attachment. In fact, there have been times when thesame object has elicited both extremes of reaction in thesame observer.

Such a situation should certainly tell us that what passes foran aesthetic experience is not one that resides in the objectbut one whose origin and whose quality (quantity orstrength) is to be found in the observer. Wherein and fromwhere, then, does the artistry arise if it is not inherent in theobject? What is the source of the aesthetic experience ifthere can be none without the particular object and theparticular observer being present. Does the tree falling inthe forest make a sound if there is no one there to hear it?


17/23

It would seem that one workable answer to this questionmight be that the qualities of a work of art, regardless oftheir estimated value, are identified only when there is an

act of perception on the part of a viewer. A relatedconsideration should be that while the qualities of the workremain in the work they cannot be released, e.g., recognizeduntil the mind set of the observer allows for it. It is not unlikehaving the right key to open the right door.

There are some people, if you can believe it, who considerSanta Fe, New Mexico one of the most beautiful communitiesin the United States. There are others, mainly Texans, whohave told me they consider it a slum, lacking culture and

depressing.** This illustration is useful in so far as itprovides us with some platform from which to try to explainhow the psychological mechanisms which govern our choicesremain somewhat shy when it comes to their beingdiscovered through psychological testing, but I rathersuspect that they are related, on that level, to what supportsour self-esteem. Santa Fe, New Mexico is not Dallas, Texasand it may take a Bostonian from Massachusetts to knowwhy they are not the same.

If what Plato suggested about artists and their role in societywere true, ones aesthetic choices, whether in production asan artist, or in appreciation, as an observer, are subjective,unreasonable and unreliable, I would then agree that artistswould be poor political risks. I believe, however, that I maybe aware of something Plato was not, although I suspect thatSocrates was. That is, that because the symbolic systemsemployed by artists are not the result of a consensus, nortied to a specific denotation (except , as might be seen, inpart, in works from the early medieval period when artistsused the same work books to arrive at their graphicsolutions). The works of many contemporary creative artistsoffer a challenge to the interpretative abilities of acontemporary observer. There are many more venues ofinterpretation and varieties of sources of information


18/23

available to the contemporary critic than in past epochs.The contemporary critic, whether professional or not, is welladvised to draw on as many of these as he can in his effortto evaluate the object before him.

It cannot be the fault of the painters, sculptors andmusicians if Plato was more comfortable with the written orthe spoken word than with the creative uses of the writtenand the spoken word. In so far as we know today theavenues of creative expression for the painter and thesculptor in ancient Greece were severely limited by theirconventions which, to a great extent, define what we, today,call the Greek style. A style, which, if presented today ascontemporary would be rejected as inadequate. It is my

understanding that it was one of Platos complaints aboutmusic that it encouraged, what he thought to be,uncontrolled behavior. In the interim the plastic arts havegained not only a respect for their innovative practices, butan expectation from their audience that what they beinnovative. The result is that, therefore, there is arequirement for more interaction between the creator andthe audience.

Today, there are many who expect that new aestheticinsights must be present in works of art for the works to beconsidered of value. Consequently, it would seem, that anaudience capable of discerning these insights must alsoexist, therefore the artist and his observers are placed in asort of adversarial position where the artist must presentmaterial the observer can comprehend and the observermust have the mental equipment to discern it. Thecontinuum of understanding from the originator to thereceiver is at hazard. This, presumably, is where thefunction of the art critic intervenes and where, ifcontemporary art critical reveals anything, the critics havefailed and their surplanters have substituted an art form oftheir invention which obscures more than it clarifies andhave made of their responsibilities a mystery religion which


19/23

fails to serve understanding but rather commercial andpolitical interests.

There is some indication that either as a result of superior

and native aesthetic intellect, or possibly more effectiveeducational experiences there was discovered in anexperimental psychological program conducted at TheUniversity of Northern Iowa between 1968-1971 a segmentof the student population representing 4% of the totalpopulation which was in significant agreement in theiraesthetic judgments of primitive and nave works withexperienced faculty members.

That alone would not be too surprising a result if it were not

also found that those same 4% consistently in their highschool and undergraduate records achieved a grade pointaverage of one grade below that of the average collegestudent and in addition was found to differ significantly fromthe average student in the matter of scores on independentlying measures indicating that the achieved academicsuperiority of the majority of the students was the result oftheir ability to con their evaluators, their teachers. Theresults also suggested that those who did not have high lie

scores were also better able make acceptable aestheticjudgments thus indicating that these judgments may beindependent of the prevailing group tolerance. Myinterpretation of this phenomenon was simply that in theirstructure of values the 4% were more confident in their ownperceptions of reality; were of more importance to them thanwere the perceptions accepted by their peers or taught themby their school or social system. In other words, they wouldnot deny the evidence of their senses in favor of the socialstructure presented them by family, school and society.

An artist behaves in the same way, if indeed he is an artistand not merely a practitioner of techniques. The artist mustrespond to the materials he employs in a direct and honestway or he is not functioning fully as an artist.


20/23

The reason why philosophers of aesthetics may not be insignificantly high agreement with the practitioners of thearts may be related to the nature of the intellectual symbolsthey use in an attempt to describe what may be heard, seen

or felt. Santayana seemed to understand this when hesuggested that poetry explained more about reality than didscience which tended to impoverish it. So be it.

I realize that in addressing this audience on these matters Imay be treading on some egos. It is not my intention toraise the respectability of the plastic arts in the minds ofthose who believe the language arts to be superior. Nor is itmy intention to be a sophist, that is, intentionally obscure inorder to challenge the listener to overcome intentionally

placed intellectual hurdles. It is my intention to suggest theprobability that given the types of behaviors characteristic ofcreative people in any field their products possess inherentlycommunicable meaning and, are therefore, liberating.

If the logic of the plastic arts is not readily apparent I believeit may have failed to be because they have traditionallybeen judged on their narrative characteristics and on theirgood technical manners rather than on the broader and

grander characteristics of their sensual sensibilities.Unfortunately, in the minds of many people these haveremained largely esoteric or, in the case, of certaingeographic areas, due to religious influences, have beendenied as a legitimate source of knowledge. Although evenin those areas their rejection of the sensual as a legitimatevehicle of expression did produce some aestheticallyhandsome pieces.

Shaker table


21/23

Regrettable as the division between the avenues ofcommunication may be which makes the visually mindedindividual a member of a minority group and the verballyoriented individual , unless he is extraordinarily well-

developed in language disciplines, a member of a vastmajority. This remarkably unbalanced relationship betweenthe verbally-minded and the visually-minded had bothfrustrated both groups and been an occasion for amusementmost especially if the verbally minded is highly accomplishedand the visually minded is accomplished in mime andgesture. As one means of addressing the imbalance in oureducational system regarding the education of our senses Ihave devised a collection of forty puzzles bearing non-objective compositions and an untraditional format which are

currently available through THE CREATIVITY PACKET aninternet source at: www.tcp.com.mt

Two examples of the puzzles mentioned above.

The meeting on the same lecture series program of AlanShields, Philosopher and Larry Rivers, painter must havebeen arranged by a mischievous impresario who was acloset comedian. Rivers used sounds, gestures and,occasionally, words, but rarely sentences and never one

thread of logic, at least not the traditional kind. Shieldsexpounded, pronounced, explained and illustrated. But it wasRivers who communicated a sense of community by meansof this clowning and was, therefore, able to upstage Shieldsby playing to the gallery. To Shields, I am certain, Riverslanguage was inept, but apt. To Rivers, I am certain, Shieldspresentation was cumbersome and therefore irrelevant.
http://www.tcp.com.mt/http://www.tcp.com.mt/


22/23

Larry Rivers, French Money

We need to rethink the qualities inherent in our senses.

Paul Henrickson, PhD.The original talk was, as I recall, written to be presented to an audience at St.Johns College, Santa Fe, New Mexico, but has been recast for thispresentation.

* The director of one of Santa Fe, New Mexicos ratherupscale art galleries specializing in the already acceptableart products volunteered to use his equipment to photographa 19th century painting, attributed to Bierstadt, I owned, tosend the photo to a gallery in New York to see whether itmight be authenticated. I wanted the photograph of thework so I agreed and waited something like two months

before I returned to ask what news he had received from theNew York Gallery. He had, apparently forgotten about theentire matter and so told me he had lost the letter from thegallery and had forgotten what it had said. Within a fewmonths more when this same gallery sponsored anexhibition of the work of the artist who some had thoughthad been the artist of the work I owned I noticed one of themore than a dozen works on exhibit was exactly a copy ofthe work I owned only half the size. Dot for dot it was thesame subject matter. It was clearly identified as the work ofthe artist some had suspected had done the work and had aprice tag of $18,000. The exhibition brochure also picturedthe work and identified it by the artists name. I was told thatthe painting really belonged to a Gold Gallery in Los Angelesand when I contacted the Gold Gallery I was told that thecards identifying this work had been withdrawn from their


23/23

file. I consider this an example of image theft and yet, itappears, I am helpless to defend myself from the results ofthis act. What is worse the people who may have bought thework have been defrauded as well and our civilization

impoverished by the deception, yet, the perpetratorscontinue to prosper. More information on this is available inthe CD: IN BROAD DAYLIGHT .

**A most outstanding example of this was the well-corseted,dominating , middle-class mother of two grown children, onemale, one female, both of whom had tried to commit suicidewithin a two-month period whose volunteered defense of her

sons attempting it in my house was that the drugs he hadused had been provided him by the then President of theNeuro-Psychological Association of America whose legalsecretary she, the mother, happened to be, or so sheclaimed. I had no response to the logic of this explanation.

the occult logic of aesthetic intellect

Documents