For those of you who suffered through my last post, on Art, this is a follow-up in which I eat crow.
In that post, I made the point that the aesthetic which gets pumped into a work of art was something LRH never talked about, really. He talked about the mechanics and the methods of the art form, but not that aesthetic which gets inserted into a piece of art (usually) and can be perceived by the eventual audience. I made it sound as though this was a crucial omission by LRH, and I thought it was. It puzzled me that LRH would omit such a thing. But as I thought about it, it occurred to me that the one reason LRH would leave it out was if he considered it part of the message.
I thought about that for a long time, and finally realized that that was indeed why LRH had not made a big deal about it. That aesthetic may or may not be there, and may or may not represent beauty or ugliness. But it was indeed an optional component. Meaning that it couldn’t be part of his analysis of the essential elements of a piece of art. His research and conclusions were based on finding out what was common to all art and boiling down all the supposed “laws” of art into what ultimately was a simplicity of a few rules and components for art in general.
So I was wrong and I apologize to those who might have been lead astray by my musings. Occasionally I get it wrong and this was one of those times. LRH was exactly right to omit it from major mention in his writings. The aesthetic of a piece of art, as separate from the mechanical representation is indeed part of the message, not an essential part of the mechanics of art.