The act of creation goes on until it reaches a stopping point. Sometimes that stopping point is arbitrary. We could go on, but we don't. Sometimes we're surprised by the way things turned out.
The question, "creation of what?" could be asking why you stop at a certain point. How do you know when to stop? How would you answer that?
I shifted from painting to digital art a couple of years ago.
What that means: You can save your work as file1, then continue to work, save again as file2, then continue to work, save again as file3, etc. Then, if you decide you hate file3 you can reload file1 or file2. In contrast to painting, this gives you the odd power to retrace your steps, re-envision your work, go back to a variety of drawing boards.
What that means: You can save your work as file1, then continue to work, save again as file2, then continue to work, save again as file3, etc. Then, if you decide you hate file3 you can reload file1 or file2. In contrast to painting, this gives you the odd power to retrace your steps, re-envision your work, go back to a variety drawing boards.
Oh, that's what sketches are for. I never lost my work.
Also, if you're struggling with your next step in a painting, you can take a pic of the painting with your phone, bring the pic into a digital art application and experiment there to determine how best to proceed.
I never understood why people think art is about beauty.
For me, mostly a non-artist, art is about the experience it gives me. It means nothing more than that. I have written a few poems I think are good. They all express a specific experience. When I read them again, it reexperience it. I wrote them for myself, they mostly wrote themselves. I've shown some of them to good friends, but they weren't written for others. If they had been, it would have been to try to give those who read them the experience I had. I see art as trying to record an experience, either for the artist or for the artist and others.
What does that have to do with beauty? The process of receiving an experience from another person is beautiful in itself. Exhilarating. The way the artists expresses the experience, the technique, can also be beautiful. And, of course, the experience can be beautiful.
Beauty can be a misleading word. It often connotes prettiness at the expense of numerous other attributes. At any rate, though what is beautiful is always aesthetic, what is aesthetic is not always beautiful. An aesthetic looking - i.e., handsome - man is not deemed beautiful by the typical woman, nor by the typical man for that matter. The grotesque, the morbid, and the horrid can be quite aesthetic for many (e.g., Salvador Dali as one well known example who often explores the grotesque), but rarely if ever can these attributes be deemed to depict beauty.
I’m currently no more inclined to try to define “the aesthetic” than I am to define either “beauty” or “art”. Doubt that I could. But, notwithstanding, my sense is that for art to in any way captivate an audience or even the artist him/herself it will need to be found aesthetic by the same - even if it is deemed ugly (e.g., some of Goya’s later works - I at least find them ugly but very aesthetic), nonsensical (e.g., many a Dadaist’s), or so forth. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be deemed of worth to the beholder.
So, from this I conclude that for art to be effective it needs to be aesthetic - though not necessarily beautiful.
Precision and good wit may result in beautiful art! A man with a good stroke may have a greater advantage in this department than a man with a common stroke(stroke is a reference to ones gesture with a tool).
I don't understand the idea that beauty is only subjective, beauty can be judged.
You can say that X person is more professionally created than Y person. You can say X art is greater than Y art, but you can't say it's not art to either. Is X artist more precise and wittier in his painting than Y artist? Is the human eye he drew more humane than hers?
Reply to Jackson
It's in the SEP article. Since you weren't aware of Aristotle's stance on knowledge and regress, I thought you might appreciate the accompanying explanation.
It's in the SEP article. Since you weren't aware of Aristotle's stance on knowledge and regress, I thought you might appreciate the accompanying explanation.
Something, but not a lot. I never understood why people think art is about beauty.
Re Beauty and the Sublime
"According to Burke, the Beautiful is that which is well-formed and aesthetically pleasing, whereas the Sublime is that which has the power to compel and destroy us. The preference for the Sublime over the Beautiful was to mark the transition from the Neoclassical to the Romantic era."
"According to Burke, the Beautiful is that which is well-formed and aesthetically pleasing, whereas the Sublime is that which has the power to compel and destroy us. The preference for the Sublime over the Beautiful was to mark the transition from the Neoclassical to the Romantic era."
But the special sort of grotesque, bizarre Modernist ugliness has no precedent I'm aware of - apart from the immemorial access to the unconscious via dreams.
Surrealism was a conscious attempt to extract an image of the unconscious. Dada as well. Automatic writing: letting the unconscious take the wheel.
I imagine the ancient Greeks - whose tragedies I adore - especially Lattimore's marvelous translations, which retain the old Greek cadence - would be wholly bewildered by automatic writing, by Lautreamont's Maldoror, or by anything from the pen of Gertrude Stein (among others).
I imagine the ancient Greeks - whose tragedies I adore - especially Lattimore's marvelous translations, which retain the old Greek cadence - would be wholly bewildered by automatic writing, by Lautreamont's Maldoror, or by anything from the pen of Gertrude Stein, among others.
Poking your eyes out seems grotesque. I don't think most people consider Stein's writing to be ugly.
Sure, grotesque. And the mythological resonances are part of our heritage of unconscious types and archetypes. But there is a clear line between poking one's eyes out, fucking your mom, being born from the balls of a castrated god, having your spleen perpetually eaten by a wild bird - all of which inspire a horror of the physical - and the psychological sublimity of Dali's stilted elephants and melting clocks and, above all - his grotesque Unnamables.
Dali's presentation of grotesque unnamables has a link to the schizophrenic's experience of the name-loss of objects - this ascendant schizoidal experience of reality may well be the line I have in mind.
At any rate, though what is beautiful is always aesthetic, what is aesthetic is not always beautiful.
I intend this as a serious comment. I don't think it's just a quibble.
Every definition of "aesthetic" I can find defines the word in relation to beauty, so if it's aesthetic, it's beautiful. I think that means we have to expand the definition of "beauty" beyond just what is pleasant to experience.
I think, no matter who started the thread, the troll is the poster being the biggest dick. Haha.
Of course, it's hard not to be a fairly sizable dick at times in an anonymous exchange. It's a challenge for even the sweetest of us: Me, of course. :hearts: :heart: :hearts: :heart:
Especially when the mods let it happen again and again. Not complaining, mods! It's good fun!
Most of my experience with art is through literature and poetry. A well-written book can be beautiful even if it is hard to read. One that comes to mind is "Painted Bird" by Jerzy Kosinski. Such a struggle to finish. So bleak.
When I think of "catharsis" I think of purging unpleasant emotions. I don't think that's what I'm talking about. I think there can be value, truth, beauty in an unpleasant experience. As I said, it's not something I want to do. Perhaps it's a sign of weakness; yes, it is; but I like happy endings.
At any rate, though what is beautiful is always aesthetic, what is aesthetic is not always beautiful. — javra
I intend this as a serious comment. I don't think it's just a quibble.
Every definition of "aesthetic" I can find defines the word in relation to beauty, so if it's aesthetic, it's beautiful. I think that means we have to expand the definition of "beauty" beyond just what is pleasant to experience.
I noticed that about the definitions. But, then, definitions can be imperfect, and the cultural significance of terms is malleable.
More to the point, in my neck of the woods, to call a heterosexual, good looking guy beautiful is most always to insult the guy, this by deeming him feminine - despite the guy having an aesthetically pleasing appearance, i.e. being handsome. (Be this semantic something that ought to be or not, it in practice is.) Which to me is one indication that the English term "beauty" is lopsided toward describing that which is of feminine attributes.
Then again, what of the ugly in art which is nevertheless attractive, captivating, and pleasing? Isn't it a contradiction in semantics to affirm that a painting is both beautiful and ugly?
Then again, what of the ugly in art which is nevertheless attractive, captivating, and pleasing? Isn't it a contradiction in semantics to affirm that a painting is both beautiful and ugly?
As I said, art is about experience. It's not necessarily the picture that's beautiful, it's the experience.
Then again, what of the ugly in art which is nevertheless attractive, captivating, and pleasing? Isn't it a contradiction in semantics to affirm that a painting is both beautiful and ugly?
I have never seen an ugly painting. I barely even understand the concept.
It's not necessarily the picture that's beautiful, it's the experience.
OK, but isn't the artwork nevertheless aesthetic to the beholder(s) even if not beautiful?
BTW, Reply to Noble Dust: I'll try my best to laconically define the aesthetic: that which draws one in, this conceptually and emotively, into a realm of truths/realities that intrigue but are not yet fully understood.
To me, this can be applied to biological beauty (what differentiates plain ol' sexual attraction to big boobs, as an example for some, from the aesthetic attraction toward another's appearance, even if they are over a hundred years old) just as much as to abstract art, or to a mathematical model, or to a particular soul/psyche, so to speak.
Debatable, I know, but I thought I'd give it a shot. Can't now think of anything I find aesthetic that doesn't. Don't know if its an over-generalization.
Reply to Jackson Alright, but it's in the eye of the beholder. To me it's not grotesque - or else viscerally revolting - but simply ugly, in both technique and depiction of subject mater. To each their own, though.
Alright, but it's in the eye of the beholder. To me it's not grotesque - or else viscerally revolting - but simply ugly, in both technique and depiction of subject mater. To each their own, though.
I look at a painting in terms of what it tells me. First, I love the colors and the shapes.
The aesthetic I did my best to define in this post. The beautiful, as I previously addressed, to me typically indicates in today's world a subcategory of the aesthetic that addresses its more feminine attributes. Ugliness can thereby be aesthetic, though not beautiful.
At least this is my current best understanding.
Though I think @T Clark does have a very good point in that the experiences of the aesthetic can always be deemed beautiful as experiences per se.
The aesthetic I did my best to define in this post.
This, right?: "that which draws one in, this conceptually and emotively, into a realm of truths/realities that intrigue but are not yet fully understood."
Not bad; I see what you mean. I would talk more about perception, but not disagreeing.
The beautiful, as I previously addressed, to me typically indicates in today's world a subcategory of the aesthetic that addresses its more feminine attributes.
I think I understand this, but have trouble with "feminine attributes." For example, a beautiful sunset. How are its properties feminine?
Yes, but perception is its own minefield, to my mind. Still, if you have opinions you want to share ...
A painting is a perception; an image. Any work of art is a perception. Not perception of something, but a physical form of perception. So the artist puts things together to form a single perception.
The etymology of "aesthetic" is Greek for sense perception. Thus, aesthetics is about perception.
Why do art works get called "aesthetic?" Because they're made to be perceived.
I think I understand this, but have trouble with "feminine attributes." For example, a beautiful sunset. How are its properties feminine?
What comes to my mind: soft, delicate, translucent ... not what one typically attributes to the state of being handsome but, instead, being (at least modern day) archetypal aspects of femininity.
As an aside: In Romanian, which as a Latin language is heavily gendered, there is no equivalent to either "beautiful" or "handsome" - which are gendered terms - but instead all aspects of these attributes are described by one word: "frumuse?e" which can take on either a masculine or feminine form. This tends to produce a different semantic understanding, imv. In English, because there's the dichotomy between "beautiful" and "handsome", there's a lot more ambiguities as to what "beauty" denotes. This even though, if you go by definition alone, all cases of "handsome" should be subsets of that which is "beautiful". But again, its not a good idea to say to a heterosexual guy that he looks beautiful.
A painting is a perception; an image. Any work of art is a perception. Not perception of something, but a physical form of perception. So the artists puts things together to form a single perception.
What comes to my mind: soft, delicate, translucent ... not what one typically attributes to the state of being handsome but, instead, being (at least modern day) archetypal aspects of femininity.
In the US there is a belief that art and appreciating beauty is a feminine quality. Like being sensitive.
Added: Which may explain why aesthetics is the least popular specialty in philosophy. All about the 'hard' sciences and not sissy stuff like art.
[quote=javra]As an aside: In Romanian, which as a Latin language is heavily gendered, there is no equivalent to either "beautiful" or "handsome" - which are gendered terms - but instead all aspects of these attributes are described by one word: "frumuse?e" which can take on either a masculine or feminine form. This tends to produce a different semantic understanding, imv. In English, because there's the dichotomy between "beautiful" and "handsome", there's a lot more ambiguities as to what "beauty" denotes. This even though, if you go by definition alone, all cases of "handsome" should be subsets of that which is "beautiful". But again, its not a good idea to say to a heterosexual guy that he looks beautiful.[/quote]
:up:
There's a brand of philosophy which has as a tenet the belief that language & culture produce distinctive worldviews. In a sense people with different languages inhabit different realms, literally.
[quote=Ludwig Wittgenstein]The limits of my language are the limits of my world.[/quote]
In the US there is a belief that art and appreciating beauty is a feminine quality. Like being sensitive.
Even so, I say, bullocks. What effective advertisement does not incorporate some form of art? One doesn't need sensitivity to be affected by advertisement. As to the appreciation of beauty, plenty of rough and calloused men who can and do appreciate beauty, as in that which can be found among women.
But yes, there's the prejudice toward so called artsy-fartsy folk. Granted.
There's a brand of philosophy which has as a tenet the belief that language & culture produce distinctive worldviews. In a sense people with different languages inhabit different realms, literally.
Yes, I'm familiar with it. To a large extent I'm in agreement. Reminds me of Aikido philosophy which, from my readings, in part affirms that each of us are the center of our own world, so to speak (i.e., hold unique understandings of the world that surrounds). Yet I nevertheless find there's still a universal reality that binds, or else tethers, all these different cultures and languages and worldviews to a common set of truths. It's why science works so well when it comes to the empirical stuff.
OK, but isn't the artwork nevertheless aesthetic to the beholder(s) even if not beautiful?
To be honest, I don't really judge a work by whether or not it's beautiful or whether the experience of it is beautiful. I judge by whether or not I am moved - emotionally, sensually, or intellectually. Changed. For an experience to be beautiful, aesthetic, it must be moving.
So, yes. I can be moved by an artwork that isn't conventionally beautiful.
[quote=javra]Yes, I'm familiar with it. To a large extent I'm in agreement. Reminds me of Aikido philosophy which, from my readings, in part affirms that each of us are the center of our own world, so to speak (i.e., hold unique understandings of the world that surrounds). Yet I nevertheless find there's still a universal reality that binds, or else tethers, all these different cultures and languages and worldviews to a common set of truths. It's why science works so well when it comes to the empirical stuff.[/quote]
Science, as you already know, is the common denominator, not a 100% of the time though (re Creationism, ID).
Comments (99)
I think it's about creation.
Creation of what?
The act of creation goes on until it reaches a stopping point. Sometimes that stopping point is arbitrary. We could go on, but we don't. Sometimes we're surprised by the way things turned out.
The question, "creation of what?" could be asking why you stop at a certain point. How do you know when to stop? How would you answer that?
I have an idea of what a painting should look like before i start.
Where does that idea come from?
Do some digital art. You can save iterations along the way.
Comes from my sense of the world and how I think the world looks.
I don't know what this means.
I shifted from painting to digital art a couple of years ago.
What that means: You can save your work as file1, then continue to work, save again as file2, then continue to work, save again as file3, etc. Then, if you decide you hate file3 you can reload file1 or file2. In contrast to painting, this gives you the odd power to retrace your steps, re-envision your work, go back to a variety of drawing boards.
Oh, that's what sketches are for. I never lost my work.
For folks who love to make visual art but lack the painter's touch and technique, it's a godsend.
Okay.
VR sculpting is a blast as well. With the same freedom to reiterate.
Also, if you're struggling with your next step in a painting, you can take a pic of the painting with your phone, bring the pic into a digital art application and experiment there to determine how best to proceed.
For me, mostly a non-artist, art is about the experience it gives me. It means nothing more than that. I have written a few poems I think are good. They all express a specific experience. When I read them again, it reexperience it. I wrote them for myself, they mostly wrote themselves. I've shown some of them to good friends, but they weren't written for others. If they had been, it would have been to try to give those who read them the experience I had. I see art as trying to record an experience, either for the artist or for the artist and others.
What does that have to do with beauty? The process of receiving an experience from another person is beautiful in itself. Exhilarating. The way the artists expresses the experience, the technique, can also be beautiful. And, of course, the experience can be beautiful.
Yes, agree with that.
Beauty can be a misleading word. It often connotes prettiness at the expense of numerous other attributes. At any rate, though what is beautiful is always aesthetic, what is aesthetic is not always beautiful. An aesthetic looking - i.e., handsome - man is not deemed beautiful by the typical woman, nor by the typical man for that matter. The grotesque, the morbid, and the horrid can be quite aesthetic for many (e.g., Salvador Dali as one well known example who often explores the grotesque), but rarely if ever can these attributes be deemed to depict beauty.
I’m currently no more inclined to try to define “the aesthetic” than I am to define either “beauty” or “art”. Doubt that I could. But, notwithstanding, my sense is that for art to in any way captivate an audience or even the artist him/herself it will need to be found aesthetic by the same - even if it is deemed ugly (e.g., some of Goya’s later works - I at least find them ugly but very aesthetic), nonsensical (e.g., many a Dadaist’s), or so forth. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be deemed of worth to the beholder.
So, from this I conclude that for art to be effective it needs to be aesthetic - though not necessarily beautiful.
2. Not all art are beautiful things (says the mind).
Xin (heart-mind).
The conflation between art and beauty is (almost) a given; nothing to see here, move along, move along!
:ok:
Ultimately, beauty and meaning are the same thing.
No; whatever "heart" is.
I don't understand the idea that beauty is only subjective, beauty can be judged.
You can say that X person is more professionally created than Y person. You can say X art is greater than Y art, but you can't say it's not art to either. Is X artist more precise and wittier in his painting than Y artist? Is the human eye he drew more humane than hers?
A beautiful sunset is meaningful. But the next day an okay sunset has no meaning? Please explain.
All sunsets are beautiful.
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty,
That is all ye know on earth,
and all ye need to know."
-Keats
I do not agree.
To each his own.
Not really. Opining is not an argument.
Some things need no argument. They're self evident.
If I do not agree it is not self evident. But, seriously, if you don't want a discussion it's fine.
What isn't?
Very little to nothing is self evident. As one philosopher said, if anything was self evident there would be no philosophy.
I think the philosopher said that if we argued for everything, we'd fall into an infinite regress after the first step.
No, not what he said. But I forget his name.
Aristotle: Knowledge does not require an infinite regress of questions.
Aristotle never said that. Cite something if you have it.
Read this.
Citation means, post the text of Aristotle with its source. "Read this," is not an argument.
It's in the SEP article. Since you weren't aware of Aristotle's stance on knowledge and regress, I thought you might appreciate the accompanying explanation.
I see you have no idea how to make an argument.
I see you're a troll.
Then we are done.
It's not for everybody! :smile:
What is not for everybody?
Re Beauty and the Sublime
"According to Burke, the Beautiful is that which is well-formed and aesthetically pleasing, whereas the Sublime is that which has the power to compel and destroy us. The preference for the Sublime over the Beautiful was to mark the transition from the Neoclassical to the Romantic era."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Philosophical_Enquiry_into_the_Origin_of_Our_Ideas_of_the_Sublime_and_Beautiful
I guess. I never got much from Burke.
Never mind! Good day. How's your cat?
Have you read the book?
What book?
A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful
The book I cited above.
Years ago I read Burke. Not the whole book, no.
At any rate, the ascendance of ugliness in art is a fascinating shift. The psychology of it.
https://www.atlassociety.org/post/why-art-became-ugly
It has some link to Freud and to the popularization of the notion of the unconscious - the artist's attempt to paint the unconscious.
If you're skeptical or interested I can find you a source.
Ugliness is not new--Greek tragedies can get pretty ugly.
But the special sort of grotesque, bizarre Modernist ugliness has no precedent I'm aware of - apart from the immemorial access to the unconscious via dreams.
Example?
Surrealism was a conscious attempt to extract an image of the unconscious. Dada as well. Automatic writing: letting the unconscious take the wheel.
I imagine the ancient Greeks - whose tragedies I adore - especially Lattimore's marvelous translations, which retain the old Greek cadence - would be wholly bewildered by automatic writing, by Lautreamont's Maldoror, or by anything from the pen of Gertrude Stein (among others).
Poking your eyes out seems grotesque. I don't think most people consider Stein's writing to be ugly.
Jackson started the thread. That makes you the troll.
Sure, grotesque. And the mythological resonances are part of our heritage of unconscious types and archetypes. But there is a clear line between poking one's eyes out, fucking your mom, being born from the balls of a castrated god, having your spleen perpetually eaten by a wild bird - all of which inspire a horror of the physical - and the psychological sublimity of Dali's stilted elephants and melting clocks and, above all - his grotesque Unnamables.
Dali's presentation of grotesque unnamables has a link to the schizophrenic's experience of the name-loss of objects - this ascendant schizoidal experience of reality may well be the line I have in mind.
Plenty of folks find Stein unreadably ugly.
I do not.
Could be. I'm the troll spouting Aristotle. Sorry.
I don't either. I think it's really clever, and just plain old beautiful. Even with the bizarre a-grammar.
I intend this as a serious comment. I don't think it's just a quibble.
Every definition of "aesthetic" I can find defines the word in relation to beauty, so if it's aesthetic, it's beautiful. I think that means we have to expand the definition of "beauty" beyond just what is pleasant to experience.
I think, no matter who started the thread, the troll is the poster being the biggest dick. Haha.
Of course, it's hard not to be a fairly sizable dick at times in an anonymous exchange. It's a challenge for even the sweetest of us: Me, of course. :hearts: :heart: :hearts: :heart:
Especially when the mods let it happen again and again. Not complaining, mods! It's good fun!
Quoting T Clark
How would you define beauty?
Most of my experience with art is through literature and poetry. A well-written book can be beautiful even if it is hard to read. One that comes to mind is "Painted Bird" by Jerzy Kosinski. Such a struggle to finish. So bleak.
So it is the quality of the writing and its form which gives the property beauty.
The experience is beautiful, but unpleasant. It's not something I enjoy. I try to avoid that kind of art.
Similar to Aristotle's idea of catharsis.
When I think of "catharsis" I think of purging unpleasant emotions. I don't think that's what I'm talking about. I think there can be value, truth, beauty in an unpleasant experience. As I said, it's not something I want to do. Perhaps it's a sign of weakness; yes, it is; but I like happy endings.
Yes. I meant that Aristotle is talking about unpleasant emotions and how they still are part of art.
Yes, then I guess we are talking about the same thing.
I think so, yes.
I noticed that about the definitions. But, then, definitions can be imperfect, and the cultural significance of terms is malleable.
More to the point, in my neck of the woods, to call a heterosexual, good looking guy beautiful is most always to insult the guy, this by deeming him feminine - despite the guy having an aesthetically pleasing appearance, i.e. being handsome. (Be this semantic something that ought to be or not, it in practice is.) Which to me is one indication that the English term "beauty" is lopsided toward describing that which is of feminine attributes.
Then again, what of the ugly in art which is nevertheless attractive, captivating, and pleasing? Isn't it a contradiction in semantics to affirm that a painting is both beautiful and ugly?
Quoting T Clark
Great book by the way.
As I said, art is about experience. It's not necessarily the picture that's beautiful, it's the experience.
Quoting javra
Hated it, but yes, very well written. Compelling. Unforgettable.
I have never seen an ugly painting. I barely even understand the concept.
OK, but isn't the artwork nevertheless aesthetic to the beholder(s) even if not beautiful?
BTW, : I'll try my best to laconically define the aesthetic: that which draws one in, this conceptually and emotively, into a realm of truths/realities that intrigue but are not yet fully understood.
To me, this can be applied to biological beauty (what differentiates plain ol' sexual attraction to big boobs, as an example for some, from the aesthetic attraction toward another's appearance, even if they are over a hundred years old) just as much as to abstract art, or to a mathematical model, or to a particular soul/psyche, so to speak.
Debatable, I know, but I thought I'd give it a shot. Can't now think of anything I find aesthetic that doesn't. Don't know if its an over-generalization.
(Two Old Men Eating Soup)
Edit: OK, that didn't work, but here's the link:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Viejos_comiendo_sopa.jpg#/media/File:Viejos_comiendo_sopa.jpg
Good. I would classify that as a bit grotesque, but not ugly. I mean, the painting is not ugly.
How so?
I thought I was responding to your comment that meaning and beauty are the same.
I'm in the process of answering you by asking a question.
I look at a painting in terms of what it tells me. First, I love the colors and the shapes.
Thanks, have not seen that before. The more I look at it the more I like it.
Yea, I like it too. (Though, again, I don't consider it a depiction of beauty, I find it aesthetic.)
Will you explain each term, beauty and aesthetic?
The aesthetic I did my best to define in this post. The beautiful, as I previously addressed, to me typically indicates in today's world a subcategory of the aesthetic that addresses its more feminine attributes. Ugliness can thereby be aesthetic, though not beautiful.
At least this is my current best understanding.
Though I think @T Clark does have a very good point in that the experiences of the aesthetic can always be deemed beautiful as experiences per se.
This, right?: "that which draws one in, this conceptually and emotively, into a realm of truths/realities that intrigue but are not yet fully understood."
Not bad; I see what you mean. I would talk more about perception, but not disagreeing.
I think I understand this, but have trouble with "feminine attributes." For example, a beautiful sunset. How are its properties feminine?
Yes.
Quoting Jackson
Cool. Nice to hear.
Quoting Jackson
Yes, but perception is its own minefield, to my mind. Still, if you have opinions you want to share ...
A painting is a perception; an image. Any work of art is a perception. Not perception of something, but a physical form of perception. So the artist puts things together to form a single perception.
The etymology of "aesthetic" is Greek for sense perception. Thus, aesthetics is about perception.
Why do art works get called "aesthetic?" Because they're made to be perceived.
What comes to my mind: soft, delicate, translucent ... not what one typically attributes to the state of being handsome but, instead, being (at least modern day) archetypal aspects of femininity.
As an aside: In Romanian, which as a Latin language is heavily gendered, there is no equivalent to either "beautiful" or "handsome" - which are gendered terms - but instead all aspects of these attributes are described by one word: "frumuse?e" which can take on either a masculine or feminine form. This tends to produce a different semantic understanding, imv. In English, because there's the dichotomy between "beautiful" and "handsome", there's a lot more ambiguities as to what "beauty" denotes. This even though, if you go by definition alone, all cases of "handsome" should be subsets of that which is "beautiful". But again, its not a good idea to say to a heterosexual guy that he looks beautiful.
Quoting Jackson
Agreed.
In the US there is a belief that art and appreciating beauty is a feminine quality. Like being sensitive.
Added: Which may explain why aesthetics is the least popular specialty in philosophy. All about the 'hard' sciences and not sissy stuff like art.
:up:
There's a brand of philosophy which has as a tenet the belief that language & culture produce distinctive worldviews. In a sense people with different languages inhabit different realms, literally.
[quote=Ludwig Wittgenstein]The limits of my language are the limits of my world.[/quote]
Even so, I say, bullocks. What effective advertisement does not incorporate some form of art? One doesn't need sensitivity to be affected by advertisement. As to the appreciation of beauty, plenty of rough and calloused men who can and do appreciate beauty, as in that which can be found among women.
But yes, there's the prejudice toward so called artsy-fartsy folk. Granted.
Yes. I find it humorous the way some folk post videos as if looking at pictures tells a self evident story.
Yes, I'm familiar with it. To a large extent I'm in agreement. Reminds me of Aikido philosophy which, from my readings, in part affirms that each of us are the center of our own world, so to speak (i.e., hold unique understandings of the world that surrounds). Yet I nevertheless find there's still a universal reality that binds, or else tethers, all these different cultures and languages and worldviews to a common set of truths. It's why science works so well when it comes to the empirical stuff.
To be honest, I don't really judge a work by whether or not it's beautiful or whether the experience of it is beautiful. I judge by whether or not I am moved - emotionally, sensually, or intellectually. Changed. For an experience to be beautiful, aesthetic, it must be moving.
So, yes. I can be moved by an artwork that isn't conventionally beautiful.
Science, as you already know, is the common denominator, not a 100% of the time though (re Creationism, ID).