(A)Esthetics and Violence Psychology: “Individual and Object”

Introduction

This chapter is not just a study focusing on psychology, philosophy and art. However, the reason I need the knowledge of all these areas is that I am interested in understanding the synthesis of the notions of “violence and aesthetics” in political psychology. Although violence and aesthetics evoke many different concepts, it is necessary to address the idea that aesthetics symbolize a different value from their accepted meanings of beauty, interest, curiosity, great values, and supreme thing. Violence carries all values in the negative impact of concrete and abstract situations and contains external and intrinsic negative influences. However, violence is not defined as a physical visible area. It effectively works between a spiritual decline and, as a result, an obligation to activate (movement, behavior). It consists of variations of acceptance by overcoming, intrinsic violence by revealing making aesthetic valuations, even the existence of the world, conditions, even its existence. So, how does this happen?

When aesthetics are the dominant element of violence (spiritual, ritual, ideological, psychological, etc.-mass, and individual areas), it has the function of filling spiritual gaps. These fields can be added to all abstract and concrete fields. These aesthetic and violent notions, which are located in an abstract line of decline, should not be considered independent of all inputs (psychological transformation, interest, orientation, activity, etc.) that affect the existence of the individual. How does it include the practices of transforming all values (religious, ideological, artistic and political, etc.)? Understanding how objects and images stand in the directional field and searching within the subjective worlds of individuals seems quite difficult. However, in this area of art, artists/work of arts, and participants/audiences, this area as a very useful area for analysis by making the difficulty of this area fun. The human will is quite complex and mysterious, art will be helpful in this field. The analysis doesn't focus on artists. It is only about subjects based on the search for the attractive spiritual characteristics of the way their work is presented. To address the issue in a multifaceted way, there were occasional references to some academic fields. Because of my priority in addressing the synthesis and contexts of violence and aesthetics, their subjects (audience-participants as emotional recipients) understanding the processes that lead to experience these works, disturbing videos for many of you have been included in the analysis process. I have to make a distinction to avoid confusion. Violence is accepted as violence that appeals to emotions over anything that can turn into a fetish object. But discussing the problem of aesthetics in the same context emphasizes the transformative characteristic of violence and aesthetics spiritually. Areas such as politics, economics, society, etc., which are inclusive values, have a great impact on violence and aesthetic notions. Therefore, violence and aesthetic notions within inclusive values involve political legitimacy, so it needs a different study. Art-based on can be seen as explanatory in terms of revealing such areas and reflecting psychological and sociological situations.

Art is a reflection of the image of the subjectivity. Depending on the individual's own imagination and the basics of thought, leaves the individual to the system of objects and images. Reflection is not composed independently of the subjective judgments and eidetic image of the artist (creator). When the creation process presents an eidetic image as psychological outcomes, a supreme value is often given to the audience (participants). We need analysis between concepts here because what we have individually is effective in understanding what we see. What is abstracted here should be not an artist-work of art, but to isolate the audience from these two and reunite it with artist-work of art. Because the artist not only creates a work of art but also hosts the whole world as socio-political, psychopathological or perceptual and orientation (objects system). When you create a work of art, it's a very normal process, but can a work of art create an artist? As Spinoza (Deleuze, 2008) points out, the process is easy to process thanks to the audience (spiritual automats who have the ability to choose the situation of encounters here).