Aesthetics (a technical issue).
Nov 17, 2021 10:39:03 #
Most definitions of "aesthetics" put beauty at the centre of its meaning. Some definitions include a mention of art and some also mention taste. However, beauty, art and taste are themselves fairly nebulous and using them to describe the meaning of aesthetics results in a nebulous definition.
It seems to me that since beauty is in the eye of the beholder (and you could say much the same thing about art and taste), aesthetics have more to do with the perception of beauty rather than the concept of beauty. That has the advantage that "perception" is not nebulous because it refers specifically to one's evaluation. If someone perceives something as being beautiful, that evaluation needs no further justification or definition. In that context, beauty becomes whatever we think it is.
In short, aesthetics are all about how we perceive beauty, and that's independent of how anybody defines beauty. Aesthetics are those qualities that we subjectively perceive as imparting beauty.
It seems to me that since beauty is in the eye of the beholder (and you could say much the same thing about art and taste), aesthetics have more to do with the perception of beauty rather than the concept of beauty. That has the advantage that "perception" is not nebulous because it refers specifically to one's evaluation. If someone perceives something as being beautiful, that evaluation needs no further justification or definition. In that context, beauty becomes whatever we think it is.
In short, aesthetics are all about how we perceive beauty, and that's independent of how anybody defines beauty. Aesthetics are those qualities that we subjectively perceive as imparting beauty.
Nov 17, 2021 10:48:29 #
Language is a passion of mine, along with photography. In matters of definition I tend to defer to the OED.
Those features of a work that contribute to its success and importance as a work of art: the features upon which its significance or beauty supervene. They include the form, content, integrity, harmony, purity, or fittingness of works. In philosophical aesthetics it has proved hard to define these features in usefully specific, objective, terms; they are in any event qualities whose apprehension pleases and satisfies us.
From: aesthetic values in The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy »
Subjects: Philosophy
Those features of a work that contribute to its success and importance as a work of art: the features upon which its significance or beauty supervene. They include the form, content, integrity, harmony, purity, or fittingness of works. In philosophical aesthetics it has proved hard to define these features in usefully specific, objective, terms; they are in any event qualities whose apprehension pleases and satisfies us.
From: aesthetic values in The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy »
Subjects: Philosophy
Nov 17, 2021 11:05:32 #
quixdraw wrote:
Language is a passion of mine, along with photogra... (show quote)
Thanks for the reference, quixdraw. I tend to play pick-and-mix when it comes to extracting the meaning of definitions from sources like dictionaries. In the case of your posted example I would say it's a mistake to get drawn into listing specific examples of what you're trying to define. The list could go on getting longer and longer while the essence of what's being described remains elusive. It should be possible to point to the essence of meaning just by referencing the relevant basic concepts. That has the advantage that you're forced into providing a distillation of the meaning of what you're trying to define. If you can't do that, the chances are you're not going to add constructively to the variety of definitions that are already out there.
Nov 17, 2021 12:24:05 #
Cany143
Loc: SE Utah
[Not that I subscribe to his theory per se, but I'd suggest you] read Leo Tolstoy's _What Is Art_. Then read some of the critiques Aestheticians subsequently wrote regarding his theories. Those alone won't have provided you anything that approaches a 'definition' of Aesthetics (or for that matter, of Art), but you may come away with a broader understanding of the arguments and counter-arguments for and against the notions that 'beauty' alone is a sufficient condition of (a work of) Art, and that (an outside observer's) 'perception' may itself not even be necessary.
Nov 17, 2021 13:05:09 #
Cany143 wrote:
Not that I subscribe to his theory per se, but I'... (show quote)
Thanks for your comments Cany143. That sounds like a lot of reading just to get a few more viewpoints and theories. It sounds like they entertained the idea that art and beauty are absolute and exist outside of opinion or even assessment. That would provide considerable material for debate. And presumably the definition wouldn't be limited to whether any intention was involved. In other words beauty or art wouldn't have to be created - they could be produced by random, unguided processes. And that in turn would suggest that unintentional art and beauty are all around us waiting to be identified.
Be that as it may, we would still be left with the problem of assessing human attempts to produce beauty and art. I can imagine there would be people claiming that they can identify this absolute art that surrounds us, and no doubt they would claim that they were therefore authorities on the subject and in a position to assess other people's efforts to produce art and beauty. Come to think of it, it's possible that such people already exist
.Nov 17, 2021 15:05:25 #
R.G. wrote:
Most definitions of "aesthetics" put bea... (show quote)
If 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', then beauty only defines the beholder, not the subject.
Nov 17, 2021 15:22:47 #
R.G. wrote:
Most definitions of "aesthetics" put bea... (show quote)
Your reasoning seems reasonable to me. But I would ditch the word/idea “beauty”. Not because it can be subjective but because it’s a rather trite goal for one’s aesthetic endeavors. It may be widespread, but it’s trite. It reduces expressive possibilities to mere opportunity to be decorative.
Beauty is OK but it doesn’t rate being all alone on the highest pedestal. Acoarst that pedestal exists and is well regarded by herds and hoards, but herds and hoards gravitate to a lowest common denominator. The inability to leave home without a polarizer is a widespread major symptom of the problem. Likewise fussing over bokeh.
I’m on the verge of a rant, so I’ll leave off before it really hits me.
Nov 17, 2021 15:29:46 #
repleo wrote:
If 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', then beauty only defines the beholder, not the subject.
That's funny. I would have put it the other way round. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder then it's the beholder that defines beauty. Unless of course you hold to the belief that beauty is absolute......
Nov 17, 2021 15:44:53 #
User ID wrote:
Your reasoning seems reasonable to me. But I would ditch the word/idea “beauty”.....
The main reason I've included beauty is because it was a recurring theme when I explored the various definitions of "aesthetics".
He also wrote:
It (beauty) reduces expressive possibilities to mere opportunity to be decorative....
Beauty can mean so many things. Some would insist that they see beauty in hairy, spiky bug-eyed insects. They would tell you that "decorative" is just one of many different kinds of beauty. And if you acknowledge that beauty is many-faceted you acknowledge that aesthetics can also be many-faceted. I vote that we're all entitled to our own sense of aesthetics and nobody has the right to tell us that we're wrong or inferior because of it.
Nov 17, 2021 16:19:18 #
R.G. wrote:
Most definitions of "aesthetics" put bea... (show quote)
I have seen some lengthy philosophical discussions of aesthetics that tend to put people to sleep.
What may be more interesting is the historical framework for these discussions as encapsulated in the Britanica article. That's less mind numbing and it covers the high points. If you want to dig deeper you will need to subscribe or go to the library.
Since philosophy is the love of wisdom, you have to enjoy the pursuit for its own sake. There is no other reward.
Nov 17, 2021 18:05:30 #
R.G. wrote:
Most definitions of "aesthetics" put bea... (show quote)
It is a very nuanced topic, and highly subjective. A person's life experiences, culture, and other factors will influence both the perception and concept of aesthetic beauty.
Nov 17, 2021 19:21:58 #
R.G. wrote:
That's funny. I would have put it the other way round. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder then it's the beholder that defines beauty. Unless of course you hold to the belief that beauty is absolute......
'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' means that the subject is what it is -regardless of who is beholding it. Finding beauty in it, or not, defines the beholder's sense of beauty not the beauty of the subject. The subject isin't changed by the beholders 'eye'.
Nov 17, 2021 19:41:42 #
Nov 17, 2021 22:47:13 #
R.G. wrote:
Most definitions of "aesthetics" put bea... (show quote)
R.G., what have you tackled here…. Over the course of my life I have read, heard and at times used the adjective “aesthetic” (or its opposite, “unaesthetic”), but after reading your post and the responses I’m inclined to banish this indefinable word from my shrinking bucket of things I know.
But kudos to you for stirring up this intellectual hornets’ nest. A few thoughts on your comments regarding beauty and art:
You say: “It seems to me that since beauty is in the eye of the beholder (and you could say much the same thing about art and taste).….”
I have to disagree with you here. We see this "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" stuff often on UHH, mostly, it seems, to justify the idea that anything creative you produce is art and anyone who criticises your work doesn’t know what he's talking about. Yeah, I know, “Everything is Beautiful…in its Own Way”.
Is there really no way to “aesthetically” differentiate between Michelangelo’s Pieta and an Elvis-on-Velvet” creation? Maybe the way out of this conundrum is to accept that there is good art and bad art?
Nov 17, 2021 22:59:18 #
srt101fan wrote:
R.G., what have you tackled here…. Over the cours... (show quote)
Heeeeeeyyyyy ... lay offa the velvet Elvis. It makes a very impactful cultural and even historical statement ! Archeologists of the future won’t care about the Dutch Masters, but they’ll write PhDs about the velvet Elvis cult.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.