Pure positivity doesn't exist, show me a picture and I'll show you the authoritarian symbolism therein. One can play with elements that induce anxiety, this fulfilled already a kathartic function in antiquity, just as certain sounds produced by the Aphex Twin can be deeply disturbing, without however the possibility that someone could have them indexed. Fear filled eyes, physical deformation or whatever can be found in any childrens comic book. lt is foolishness to pretend one lives in a clean, peaceful world without agression, one cannot distance oneself from it.
Only, should one submit what one does to serious scrutiny in the search for such topoi, one would probably end up going mad. There is a certain hybris involved in wanting to recognize authoritarian gestures in any little flower one might see, one shouldn't do it. One might, but no one reading a murder mystery ponders upon the nature of death. Or in everyday decisions such as not greeting someone you know, or no longer calling someone whom you had always phoned before, could be understood as violent acts. lt's just the way the world is and above all the way one's self is. So one should leave such analyses to rest.
A truly sensitive person couldn't bear the world anyway. What sufferings would he/she endure looking at certain window displays, posters, houses. Or the way some people dress. Sometimes I think "How can I possibly trust someone who would wear such shoes?"
lt is an indispensible form of self-protection to ignore for the large part, one's surroundings, anyway at least on bad days. And when one gains some clarity in regarding aesthetic antipathy, what it really means, it becomes even worse. Adorno spoke of "devotion to the normal world", which can be understood as a position from which one may put oneself above formal preference for the beneft of a good meaning or function, extremely important especially when one makes art, otherwise you end up gradually building a model world, which has nothing more to do we the reality surrounding one. lt is therefor for myself a senseless definition of "style", that everything should look merely similar and so to have found an "aesthetic".
Nowhere is there anyone who worries themselves about what I like to see, so, therefor I am only bothered to a certain degree by that which I make myself. Possibly l'll like it later. Aesthetics isn't vidgid, nothing could be worse than to have a "taste" whose hurdle cannot be overcome to reach something new and unknown. lf one cannot separate form and content from one another, if form is the content, or even worse, if form is no longer content, as D. Dietrichsen in 'The kids are not alright' surmised, in both cases aesthetics must become a negligeable quantity. That doesn't mean though, that the word reigns supreme, but that it's not about snobistic notions of style, but rather more about the degree and direction of the visual.
