The Organization of Energies

I am not really sure I understand everything that is going on in this reading. The main messages I took from it was: all works of art contain at least one rhythm, which when properly placed, forms organized energy. This organized energy gives the work life in an esthetically pleasing and satisfying manner. Most works of art have more than one rhythm, and these rhythms have variation in them. Although I am sure that I missed out on some of the author’s finer points I did enjoy some of his/her ideas on rhythm.

One thing I was a little lost about was the author’s idea of perception of artwork. He (or she) refers to needing all of the senses for perception to occur. Does he mean that a work of art engages all of our senses so that we might perceive the organized energies within the work? If so, then how would it engage us in the first place? I realize that perception is very important when viewing art, however I don’t really see where this author is going/went with his idea of perception in relation to the organized energies. Also, I don’t wholly agree with the statement that something cannot be perceived without all of the senses.

Another thing I pondered was the author’s statement, “There are works of art that merely excite, in which activity is aroused without the composure of satisfaction, without fulfillment of within the terms of the medium. Energy is left without organization.” What if you would like to leave the audience with a question instead of an answer or resolution? Or give them something stirring yet unresolved so they’re left to their imagination? Would this still be a form of organized energies or would it be considered ‘without fulfillment of within the terms of the medium?’ Any thoughts?