cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

I'll second that vote!

cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

You say you disagree with "Art (or beauty) is in the eye of the beholder", but what defines art? Who, (or what) determines what is art, and what is not?

SkyKing Loc: Thompson Ridge, NY

[quote=R.G.]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.

…I’m not sure aesthetics is a technical issue…maybe it’s more of an esoteric issue…? So when you create something there is always an intended audience involved…even if it just to please yourself…? In a cynical sense, isn’t all art about “ finding use for the useless…?”

fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...

I'll agree with repleo on this one- and by extension, Oscar Wilde who suggested that once something is created, the creator has nothing more to do with the matter; the critic determines value.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

srt101fan

.... (I think!)

Abo

My mother, if she did not like the look of something, would say;
"that offends my aesthetic senses".

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Thanks for the link. My main purpose for posting the link wasn't to generate philosophical discussion, although that is welcome in so far as it serves my main purpose, which is to hopefully facilitate a better understanding of the term "aesthetics". Several of the threads in recent weeks have embraced subjects such as art, beauty and the like, and it seems to me that we need a common understanding of the vocabulary being used. I chose the term "aesthetics" because I saw it being used in a very general sense and I think its meaning should be defined more clearly than it is.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Apparently there are those who think that beauty is absolute and therefore independent of personal taste, preference etc. I agree with you that the most meaningful interpretation of aesthetics is that it's to do with perception.... but apparently that's not the only interpretation......

srt101fan

I agree with you. Beauty (as conventionally understood ) is one possible attribute to consider in art but certainly not the only one. I see no "beauty" in Gruenewald's Crucifixion (https://www.wikiart.org/en/matthias-grunewald/the-crucifixion-1524) or Soutine's work (https://www.wikiart.org/en/chaim-soutine/) or much of Hockney's work among others. But then there are so many aspects of beauty - is there beauty in Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothea_Lange#/media/File:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg)? I'm guessing most of us would say yes......

R.G., sorry if I'm getting carried away here and wandering too far off topic....

R.G. Loc: Scotland

That expression points to two things - the subjective use of the word and (less directly) the objective nature of beauty. And that summarises one of the main difficulties when discussing such subjects. Taking beauty as an example, it has an objective existence (i.e. it exists whether we perceive it or not), and separate and distinct from that is our subjective experience of it. In other words it is an objective reality and at the same time it can also be a subjective experience.

There is nothing in the word itself to indicate in which sense it is being used and often it isn't clear from the context either.

Most of us relate more readily to personal experience rather than to abstract or philosophical thought, so we connect with the subjective implications of a word's meaning more easily than with its philosophical implications. That doesn't mean that philosophy and abstract thought shouldn't have their say when it comes to formulating definitions, but it's also true that the philosophers don't have a definitive say where definitions are concerned. The tricky bit comes when you try to encompass both viewpoints. And the confusion starts when you assume that there's only one viewpoint.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

This was the first definition I came across but it's a long way from being the only one. I wouldn't want to downplay the usefulness of dictionaries and other such references, but the simple fact is they're a long way from being an absolute authority. If you need convincing of that, just look at the amount of inconsistency there is between them.

srt101fan

I understand where you are coming from with your last sentence and want to go along with it but can't quite get there. Are there not some boundaries or at least grey areas? Do we not generally agree that depictions of bodily discharges are "unaesthetic"?

R.G. Loc: Scotland

As you've done yourself several times now, I started this thread hoping to clarify a term that we've seen being used quite a few times in the last few weeks. Having a mutually understood vocabulary is conducive to meaningful and constructive exchanges. It also occurs to me that we need to recognise both the objective and the subjective implications of such terms or expressions. For example, it's true to say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder (subjective), but it's also true to say that beauty has an existence that's independent of any beholder (objective).

As I pointed out in the opening post, definitions of aesthetics are invariably centred on the concept of beauty, but that concept is intrinsically nebulous, which results in the definitions of aesthetics being equally nebulous (if not more so). In pursuit of the most basic definition of "aesthetics" we have to somehow accommodate the subjective and objective nature of beauty - or accept the conclusion that there will always be two different ways to think about beauty (and therefore aesthetics). Whatever the result, it's nice to have a more clearly defined vocabulary to use.

R.G. Loc: Scotland