Aesthetic Arrest vs. Kinetic Art

This past week I read a very interesting collection of writings, including: Ann Bogart's essay 'Eroticism', Joseph Beuys 'Energy Plan for the Western Man',  some of Robert Henri's 'The Art Spirit', and also 'The Art of Living: Aeshetics of the Ordinary in World Spiritual Traditions' by Crispin Sartwell.  Collectively these works all relate to and even refer to Aquinas and Joyce's terms 'Aesthetic Arrest' and 'Kinetic Art'.

What I find most compelling is the duality suggested by Joyce when he states that true art makes 'Aesthetic Arrest' happen, that one is stopped in arrest, versus kinetic art, which he says is a lower art because it moves you with a desire to act, rather then hold you in arrest.  In Portrait of an Artist, Joyce quotes Aquinas on the subject of "proper" and "improper" art. Proper art has to do with aesthetic experience, which is static. Proper art doesn't move you to do anything.
Improper art, on the other hand, is kinetic. It moves you with desire, loathing or fear for the object represented. Consequently, it moves you to action. Thus you're not in aesthetic arrest. Art that moves you with desire towards an object, Joyce called pornographic. According to Joyce, all advertising is pornographic art. (Lee)

Joseph Campbell interpreted 'Proper Art' as having the quality of aesthetic arrest which then moved you to feel something, such as awe, astonishment, or wonder - it will strike an inner, spiritual chord.  It stops viewers motion, both literally and figuratively; therefore, this type of response is deemed "static," and the experience of it is called "aesthetic arrest."

"Proper art, of course, means art performing a function that is proper to art - the kind of function only art can serve.  And improper art is art in the service of something else."   Joseph Campbell, "The Power of Myth"

I find it interesting to describe 'aesthetic arrest' as static, inferring that there is no movement.  I personally believe stopping is movement, and 'art performing a function' is moving, so therefor find it impossible to separate the experience of art from movement.  Isn't experience also movement?

(There is a strange use of the word 'pornographic' in Joyce's explanation--which Campbell picks up again and which I would like to tease out a bit at a later time, as it has similar complexities like the word 'Erotic' in the descriptions of art, creativity, and interest.)

Then we move to Crispin Sartwell, he begins a most compelling jaunt into the theory of art by first bringing our attention to the concept of art as a western concept--that many cultures do not have or make "art" as we understand it (do we understand what is art in the west?).  He recognizes that in every living culture throughout time people are making what we call art--and that it is all with specific purposes and that it also has aesthetic qualities, yet it is not recognized as "art" by those who make or do it.  It is spoken of as "tools", "clothing", "medicine", etc.  His theory is that all men are artists--which is shared by Beuys and myself.  What links us together is that we believe it is our creativity that makes us artists, and creativity is a part of the human experience of life.

Now, Beuys seems to have determined later in his career that 'Socially Engaged Art' was the highest of the arts, as it was the ability to evolutionize human existence, and when asked about his aesthetics, he said "human beings".  He would be classified as a kinetic artist by Joyce.  Looking at Beuys works and contributions as an artist, I am in great admiration of his artistic spirit and I feel a true affinity with him as an artist myself.  However, there are choices and thoughts he had towards his work and artwork in general, that I feel inconclusive about.  Such as when he was asked about the "multiples" that were for sale in the museum, like the $50 felt eraser that had his signature on it.  He replied "It is a kind of vehicle, you know.  It is a kind of making, spreading out ideas, that is what I think." (44)  To me this is no different then advertisement or propaganda and I would agree with Joyce here, that this is improper art and commodification.  BUT, I also believe in the value of ideas, sharing ideas and that they need a materiality, a place in space to be held and moved.  Which is why I, like and unlike Beuys, and like and unlike Joyce, believe in both the value of aesthetic arrest and the kinesthetic aspect of art.  

I believe 'proper' art possesses both the qualities of aesthetic arrest and kinesthetics.  For me the kinetic aspect is "change" or "help", the art changes or helps something with intentions of goodness.