Aesthetics in the PN forum

[marjoramblues]

How often are the aims of any thread-starter made clear, and when, if ever, are the objectives reached.
How long is a piece of philosophy...

1) I often write straight from inspiration, and then it can be hard to know what I even intend myself! It's more of a way of expressing oneself and one's thoughts.

2) Are you talking about the initial post or the discussion that follows or both? In my own experience it is seldom that the thread becomes sufficiently committed to the initial question or challenge, but occasionally they do, at least to some extent.

3) Philosophy has no length and because of its free nature it can't be given any, that would be counter-productive. But occasionally a point is more rewarded and therefore nourished if it is short and concise and something people themselves have already been exposed to and therefore have some understanding how to handle.

Thanks, Voice - I too love 1)
I sometimes...often... just jump into a topic without having a clue where it will lead.
However, I enjoy reading a 2) - a hook - something substantive - and a conclusion.
The long threads 3) can be fun and interesting to follow; real talent, trips and tips if following closley, but if new to the thread...wow...panning for gold in them thar hills...

[Tusok]

As the newbie, I'd like to weigh in with those who said:

Let us be the ones to offer the definitions to begin with, for both art and beauty can mean different things to different people, and

For the most part, these two concepts are not necessarily linked.

Finally, why do we need to try and delineate any one thing as being art, or being a beauty? Why can't we say instead, this thing has some element of art to it, and / or some element of beauty?

[marjoramblues]

As the newbie, I'd like to weigh in with those who said:

Let us be the ones to offer the definitions to begin with, for both art and beauty can mean different things to different people, and

For the most part, these two concepts are not necessarily linked.

Finally, why do we need to try and delineate any one thing as being art, or being a beauty? Why can't we say instead, this thing has some element of art to it, and / or some element of beauty?

Welcome, Tusok.

Well. of course, we can say anything we like about art or beauty.
Here is an introductory philosophical perspective:

Beauty
First published Tue Sep 4, 2012

The nature of beauty is one of the most enduring and controversial themes in Western philosophy, and is—with the nature of art—one of the two fundamental issues in philosophical aesthetics. Beauty has traditionally been counted among the ultimate values, with goodness, truth, and justice. It is a primary theme among ancient Greek, Hellenistic, and medieval philosophers, and was central to 18th and 19th-century thought, as represented in treatments by such thinkers as Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Hume, Burke, Kant; Hegel, Schopenhauer, Hanslick, and Santayana. By the beginning of the twentieth century, beauty was in decline as a subject of philosophical inquiry, and also as a primary goal of the arts. However, the last decade has seen a revival of interest in the subject.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty/

The Definition of Art
First published Tue Oct 23, 2007; substantive revision Tue Oct 9, 2012

The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated.
Contemporary definitions are of two main sorts. One distinctively modern, conventionalist, sort of definition focuses on art's institutional features, emphasizing the way art changes over time, modern works that appear to break radically with all traditional art, and the relational properties of artworks that depend on works' relations to art history, art genres, etc. The less conventionalist sort of contemporary definition makes use of a broader, more traditional concept of aesthetic properties that includes more than art-relational ones, and focuses on art's pan-cultural and trans-historical characteristics.

...“It is not at all clear that these words – ‘What is art?’ – express anything like a single question, to which competing answers are given, or whether philosophers proposing answers are even engaged in the same debate…. The sheer variety of proposed definitions should give us pause. One cannot help wondering whether there is any sense in which they are attempts to … clarify the same cultural practices, or address the same issue.” (Walton, 1977, 2007)


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/

The point I was trying to make is that 'Aesthetics' is broader than these definitions.
And that having those as the 'introductory' descriptors could act as a turn-off.
How useful is it to ponder definitions alone.
I suggest that aesthetics is combined with the function of a product/performance, together with the motivation of the performer, producer - so a more comprehensive heading might be:
'Philosophy of the Arts'.

Any comments welcome.

[marjoramblues]

Hmmm

'Philosophy of the Arts' wouldn't cover this:

Environmental Aesthetics

First published Mon Jan 29, 2007; substantive revision Mon Dec 13, 2010
[ emphasis added]

Environmental aesthetics is a relatively new sub-field of philosophical aesthetics. It arose within analytic aesthetics in the last third of the twentieth century. Prior to its emergence, aesthetics within the analytic tradition was largely concerned with philosophy of art. Environmental aesthetics originated as a reaction to this emphasis, pursuing instead the investigation of the aesthetic appreciation of natural environments. Since its early stages, the scope of environmental aesthetics has broadened to include not simply natural environments but also human and human-influenced ones. At the same time, the discipline has also come to include the examination of that which falls within such environments, giving rise to what is called the aesthetics of everyday life. This area involves the aesthetics of not only more common objects and environments, but also a range of everyday activities. Thus, early in the twenty-first century, environmental aesthetics embraces the study of the aesthetic significance of almost everything other than art.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/envir ... esthetics/

'the aesthetics of everyday life'
How broad is that...and whatever does it mean...

[Tusok]

Thanks for the welcome M.

So I read the first bit of what you referenced on beauty, and everything that you wrote.

I think I have to stay with my original question based on your original question. Why not keep these entirely separate, and start chewing on them one at a time? Let's start with beauty.

From the stanford site, I take issue with the very first statement.

Perhaps the most familiar basic issue in the theory of beauty is whether beauty is subjective—located ‘in the eye of the beholder’—or whether it is an objective feature of beautiful things.

It seems to me that our understanding of behavior has advanced enough to claim that all beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. More than that, it seems to me that proving beauty is entirely subjective is much easier than trying to prove that it's some kind of universal standard.

Why don't we think about how we can define beauty first, especially one that works for both of us, even though we might find different things beautiful?

T

[marjoramblues]

T: I think I have to stay with my original question based on your original question. Why not keep these entirely separate, and start chewing on them one at a time? Let's start with beauty.

M: I understand your wish to discuss 'Beauty'; it's a Grand Question.
However, I suggest that this Deelish Dish is spread out on its very own table; all the better to lick and savour.
So, I think I have to ask you to please share your palate in a thread of your own making
Thanks.

[Tusok]

Dear M,

I'll leave your thread if you want me to, but I thought it would be fun to talk about the subject you brought up in your very first post -

What is art - what is beauty

It seems to me that if we can't define these things, or even agree as to what might be beautiful, then the whole conversation becomes rather moot. Wouldn't you agree?

T

[marjoramblues]

Dear M,

I'll leave your thread if you want me to, but I thought it would be fun to talk about the subject you brought up in your very first post -

What is art - what is beauty

It seems to me that if we can't define these things, or even agree as to what might be beautiful, then the whole conversation becomes rather moot. Wouldn't you agree?

T

Dear T

Do what you like.

I've said all I want to re the subforum of 'Aesthetics' and how it has expanded beyond the 2 traditional questions used as 'pointers'.
There is no need to answer the actual questions referenced.

M

[Tusok]

Dear M,

There is no need to answer the actual questions referenced.

But if we don't agree on the foundation questions, why should we then agree on any of the resulting conclusions? If you and I can't agree on a simple definition of beauty, then doesn't the entire concept of encompassing beauty within the field of aesthetics become moot?

T

[marjoramblues]

Dear T

OK.
First of all, I am not attempting to reach any conclusion about 'encompassing beauty within the field of aesthetics'. It is a given that this is a traditional question.

Just as the topic of, let's say, abortion is amongst issues discussed under 'Applied Ethics', we don't need to agree on a definition of abortion before we can talk about what might be encompassed within the broader field of applied ethics.

We don't need to define what atheism is to talk about what might draw people into the box of 'Philosophy of Religion'. Once we are in the box, then we can have 'fun' chewing over the hard gristle.

I find the questions on the boxes limiting, unnecessary and a potential turn-off.
However, I also see that categorising is part and parcel of philosophy; perhaps a refreshing up-date is all that is required. After all, the forum is called Philosophy Now

Those are my thoughts. And they don't require a definition of beauty.

I hope this has helped.

Thanks.

M

[Tusok]

I find the questions on the boxes limiting, unnecessary and a potential turn-off. However, I also see that categorising is part and parcel of philosophy; perhaps a refreshing up-date is all that is required. After all, the forum is called Philosophy Now Those are my thoughts. And they don't require a definition of beauty. I hope this has helped.

Hi again M.

It helps, and it doesn't. You want to talk about aesthetics, and that it doesn't have to bother with "boxes limiting" our discussion.

Yet I have been in many discussions where no one bothered to define the foundation elements. In the end there were no conclusions. It seems to me that the last part of your statement saves the day.

"Categorising is part and parcel of philosophy." I totally agree! If philosophy is ever going to regain its stature as a discipline, we are going to have to buckle down and pay attention to the foundation. Otherwise, like a house built on sand, we'll never get the attic built!

T

[HexHammer]

There's no point in trying to make a definitive definition of art and beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. Anything can be used as art, the tragic thing is there's a psychological phenomenon called "mass hysteria" a branch of "grup think" where people may be tuned to think like the group does, which the Millgram experiment would prove.

Picasso objectivly made fugly as sin paintings, but yet they sold for a hysterically high amount of money.

So, don't commit a fool's errand in trying to define it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

There's no point in trying to make a definitive definition of art and beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. Anything can be used as art, the tragic thing is there's a psychological phenomenon called "mass hysteria" a branch of "grup think" where people may be tuned to think like the group does, which the Millgram experiment would prove.

Picasso objectivly made fugly as sin paintings, but yet they sold for a hysterically high amount of money.

So, don't commit a fool's errand in trying to define it.

From your limited knowledge, when you actually have to make an intelligent statement, you come to absurd conclusions.

You need to train your abstract logic, specially your beloved 1 example that will break the general concensus and make the new concensus. I'll just put you on ignore and may time give you insight.