Talk:Aesthetics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the Philosophy WikiProject, an attempt at creating a standardised, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use Philosophy resource. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles.

Aesthetics is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated A-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Socsci.

Archives
May 21 2003 – February 14 2006

Contents 1 Clean up 2 New Heading 3 1911 Britannica as a starting point 4 this should be easier 4 9yr olds to understand 5 The second sentence of this article needs serious work 6 The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy aesthetics article is excellent 7 Aesthetics vs. Aesthetic 8 Offline Rewrite 8.1 Summary of Copyedit changes 9 What About Personal Beauty? 10 Fads 11 what the article should deal with 12 Request for Expert Philosophical Assistance 13 » 14 Aesthetic Relief 15 Minor Point 16 Nominate for a Featured Article? 17 Golden ratio 18 Factors in aesthetic judgement cleanup 19 aesthetician shouldn't take you to this page 20 Industrial Aesthetics

[edit] Clean up

I took out the following section titles:

Ancient Greece, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, 18th Century, Kant, Hume, 19th Century, Hegel, Nietzsche, Tolstoy, 20th Century, Clive Bell, R. G. Collinwood, John Dewey, Susanne Langer, Arthur Danto

None of them contained anything, though a few were marked as stubs. Leaving section headings followed by nothing is messy and meaningless. We need information about these sections, not just their titles. For that matter, this whole article needs to be cleaned up and improved, IMO - J.S. Nelson 5 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)

Yeah, no kidding. Forgive me for adding those empty sections, which were basically desperate cries for assistance. --Slac 5 July 2005 04:58 (UTC)

Yes, the article needs a major rewrite by an expert. Knowing nothing of this topic, I came here via the Philosophy of art redirect hoping to get an overview, but the material here seems to cover only one small aspect. Slac's contention that the article covers little of what's in a typical philosophy of aesthetics course is borne out by for example [1] which describes the content of a text on the subject. I'll put a cleanup tag on the article in the hope of attracting the attention of someone who can do it justice. -- JimR 10:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Heading

Greek Speculations - "Ancient Greece supplies us with the first important contributions to aesthetic theory, though these are scarcely, in quality or in quantity, what one might have expected from a people which had so high an appreciation of beauty and so strong a bent for philosophic speculation. The first Greek thinker of whose views on the subject we really know something is Socrates. We learn from Xenophon's account of him that he regarded the beautiful as coincident with the good, and both of them are resolvable into the useful. Every beautiful object is so called because it serves came rational end, whether the security or the gratification of man. Socrates appears to have attached little importance to the immediate gratification which a beautiful object affords to perception and contemplation, but to have emphasized rather its power of furthering the more necessary ends of life. The really valuable point in his doctrine is the relativity of beauty. Unlike Plato, he recognized no self-beauty (auto to kalon) existing absolutely and out of all relation to a percipient mind." --From the 1911 Encyclopedia (Public Domain)

Would this section be appropriate? The same encyclopedia also has entries for Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus. Famous German philosophers also each get a section. If it gets used then the template "open curly open curly 1911 close curly close curly" should be included. See my talk page for more of the 1911 entry. Jeff 23:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1911 Britannica as a starting point

Might it be a good idea to replace the current article entirely with the 1911 one, then make whatever changes are necessary to incorporate modern developments? That article is quite well done and treats many subtle points that we're missing here. inkling 05:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• This sounds a good idea, inkling! Major surgery like this is required, in my opinion. But could we see the text from the 1911 if you have it downloaded already (e.g. from [2])? Maybe you could post it here for consideration, and if people agree it can be moved to the article page, perhaps in conjunction with moving the content of the existing article to here on the Talk page. -- JimR 06:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks Jeffmilner for posting it (see just below), though seeing it, I'm not sure if my idea of having it here on the talk page was the best approach. It's more informative than the present page, though the style is old fashioned; it's long; and wow, it will need a lot of work. I propose that we move it to say /Brit1911 which will be a subpage of this talk page: this seems to be allowed, according to WP:SP#Allowed uses number 1. Then it will stand by itself, and we can work on it to correct the scanning errors, remove the newlines, and wikify — and update it, if anyone has the necessary knowledge. Then once it's up to scratch we can replace the existing article with it (we'd probably want to save the current version here on the talk page). Does anyone dislike this suggestion? -- JimR 09:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I've now created /Brit1911 as I proposed, and will do some work on it, I hope with other people's help. -- JimR 06:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

TimNelson 10:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC) -- People have talked about replacing the article. I think it would be better to put the Brit1911 was tacked on to the end of the section labelled "Aesthetics in History and Philosophy". The stuff currently on Wikipedia is good, but it's an entirely different categorisation system, which is why it doesn't resemble what people are studying. If this is what we decide to do, we'll have to promote the headings on the current Aesthetics page, and demote the headings on the Brit1911 one.

There may be drawbacks in inserting /Brit1911 into Aesthetics: the result would be extremely long, and there would be a glaring clash of styles between the Britannica's tone and the modern article. Instead, what would people think of moving /Brit1911 to say History of aesthetics (pre-20th-century) or Aesthetics (history pre-1900), and linking it prominently from a suitable place in the main article? -- JimR 04:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has opposed this suggestion, so I've moved the Britannica material to History of aesthetics (pre-20th-century) and linked it from Aesthetics#See also. -- JimR 03:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this should be easier 4 9yr olds to understand

How so? How is it difficult to understand. Also, please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Hyacinth 10:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The second sentence of this article needs serious work

"Any person's aesthetic response to a work of art will be unique to that individual, but many aesthetic principles can be identified and used by the creator of the work to achieve specific aesthetic effects."

1) How is an "aesthetic response" different from a generic "response"? This is not clear from the introductory paragraph.

2) Saying that "many aesthetic principles can be identified and used by the creator of the work to achieve specific aesthetic effects" seems meaningless. I could substitute any other word for "aesthetic" in this phrase, and have an equivalent statement. Ex: "many scientific principles can be identified and used by the creator of the work to achieve specific scientific effects". It may (or may not) be true, but it doesn't help you understand what "aesthetic" means.

I thought I would post these comments here, rather than simply deleting the sentence in question, in the hope that someone might be able to do something with it. I think aesthetics can be useful, but I really don't think this sentence is helpful in explaining it. WhiteC 02:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No defenders... I cut it out. WhiteC 05:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy aesthetics article is excellent

I just finished reading the aesthetics article on The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It is far superior to this Wikipedia article. Anyone interested in making improvements might consider using this resource as a guide. --Gavin 15:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aesthetics vs. Aesthetic

Hi all. I came here looking for "Aesthetic", the noun, not "Aesthetic" the adjective. The word "Aesthetic" redirects here to "Aesthetics" (and rightly so).

An example of the difference:

1. (adjective) relating to or dealing with the subject of aesthetics; "aesthetic values"
2. (noun) (philosophy) a philosophical theory as to what is beautiful; "he despised the esthetic of minimalism"

(lines above taken from Googling "define:aesthetic"). I'd been reading about Cool, which is defined on the Cool disambiguation page as an African philosophy and aesthetic. I came here to try to answer the questions "What is an aesthetic?" (the noun), for which I had to go to Google to get the above definition, and "What other aesthetics are there" (which, now that I know the meaning of Aesthetic (noun), can be rephrased as "What different theories of the attractive are there", with "Cool" being one of these. I've attempted to answer these, by defining "Aesthetic" as separate from Aesthetics at the top of the page, and by adding the "Schools of Aesthetics" section. Unfortundately I only had one entry for that list (and the discussion page for that article shows some controversy); if anyone has anything different to add, please feel free. TimNelson 09:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Offline Rewrite

In response to numerous comments, I am taking a couple of days to run a major copyedit of the article OFFLINE; I will also incorporate some elements from the 1911 Britannica history. I should slightly simplify the language as well (shooting for an 11th grade audience).

Note that any changes made ONLINE to the article between now and the update will be lost.

JeffC 15:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks: a good edit, incorporating some of the 1911 history already at History of aesthetics (pre-20th-century), will be very worthwhile. Note that you can use {{inuse}} as a standard way of indicating that you are working on the page offline. -- JimR 05:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of Copyedit changes

→ A couple of sections had Definitions of the word Aesthetic; I combined these into a top "Definition" section;

→ I added in some of the Britannica info into the existing History and Philosophy section, arranging it more chronologically with sub-section headings. As the first couple paragraphs of the Visual Arts section appeared to talk about Modern views on Aesthetic philosophy, I moved those paragraphs from Visual Arts to the Philosophy section;

→ I removed many of the wikified words leaving primarily propper nouns and large concepts wikifield;

→ I combined the sections of Information Technology and Digital Aesthetics;

→ The Mathematics section had a tone as if it were trying to justify the beauty in math. We already accept that; I repurposed the section to try to delinieate the aesthetic elements of said beauty;

→ Various grammar and clarity corrections.

JeffC 17:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What About Personal Beauty?

Certainly people apply aesthetic values to their own personal hygiene and beauty. In what section should we discuss this? Is Personal Aesthetics an Art, Science, or Engineering?

JeffC 12:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fads

How do we approach the topic of fads -- more frequently than even politics, Aesthetic tastes become victims of widespread popularity (a fad) that lasts a half-generation or so and then disappears. Is this worth mentioning in the main article? What else can we say about this phenomenon? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeffC (talk • contribs) 2006-02-14 13:01:57 (UTC)

[edit] what the article should deal with

Shouldn't this article also deal with issues of art like what the definition is; or it's value (see the "case against art" article which can be googled). 64.113.106.153 05:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Expert Philosophical Assistance

Hopefully the tag added to this article will entice someone to add more intellectual rigor to the subject. Right now, the article is unsatisfactory, not particularly informative, and disorganized. Let's use the 1911 Britannica article as the main text and piece together subsequent philosophical ideas to fit into the article. A massive rewrite is definitely called for...

Wipfeln 22:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  »

no pictures lol --AnYoNe! 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The 1911 Brittanica Article is mired deep in POV, worse its a POV that started dying in the teens, and was dead dead by the 60's, it's history section is decent (but still very POV) and has been hived off into an awkward "history of aesthetics (pre-20th century)" article, but the rest of the 1911 Brittanica article is about as useful as a pre-plate tectonics discussion of global geology. I am a philosophy professor although not a specialist in aesthetics. I have put up a massive re-write. I have left the expert tag in but I may well count as a expert of the relevant kind, I'll let someone else decide. I'm not sure if I complied with all the wiki:philosophy project goals on the first shot, someone should check that. In particular I haven't done a good job of avoiding weasel words and dialogic style, I don't know any other way to make the material short, accessible, accurate, NPOV and still do justice to all aesthetic positions of all cultures and historical periods. Bmorton3 16:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aesthetic Relief

Thank you. That's expert enough for me. I originally sought the wikipedia article for the purpose of learning something about aesthetics, and it was a disappointment. Today, literally, my first and second impressions of this new version were "oooooh. Pretty pictures." and then "Ew! Bugs!" Then I read the text, and it's informative, thoughtful, and clearly knowledgeable. Anyway, now I'm more informed about aesthetics, and the wikipedia resource has a beautiful article with well-placed pictures, references, and an authoritative treatment of an important field of study. Good job! Wipfeln 06:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Point

Under industrial design:

"designers heed many aesthetic qualities to improve the marketability of manufactured products: smoothness, shininess/reflectivity, texture, pattern, curviness, color, simplicity (or usability), velocity, symmetry, naturalness, and modernism"

Simplicity is not the same as usability -- it's a subset of usability at best. For an example: lets say apple came out with an iPod so small it only had one button; the power button. You turn it on and it just starts playing whatever it feels like at whatever volume it feels like. This would be a simple interface, but it would not be a useable interface... I've never edited a wikipedia article and it's such a small point that I figured I'd just mention it and let someone else change it if they saw fit to.

[edit] Nominate for a Featured Article?

Hello friends,

I think that this article is /almost/ to the point where it might be acceptable to nominate it as a Featured Article. I am somewhat blinded though by my personal involvement... can we get some other opinions? JeffC 02:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

For me, this article feels different to other articles I have read on Wikipedia (and I've read many, like I'm sure we all have) and I really like it. There is a subtle change of vocabulary and I say with a coy tongue-in-cheek voice, I like the aesthetics of the "long" question mark headings. The text is written like a wiki/encyclopedic page with with a certain element of Philosophical textbook which the newest novice could understand. I think it is nearly ready, at worst. 80.47.196.152 22:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on the treatment that the Hilary Putnam article got as a feature article candidate, I'd say that a much better copy-editor than me needs to go over this with a fine tooth comb, and someone needs to fill this puppy with a large number of in-line reference citations, before we consider it for FA. It think the overall structure and feel is pretty good, but the detail-language may need a bunch of ironing. Bmorton3 14:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the formatting more pleasing in accord with WP:FN and WP:MOSHEAD. It's still rather imbalanced on the citations, all of which are early in the text. A scattering of reference marks in every section seems implied by Featured Aesthetics. Gimmetrow 16:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of this article is okay as it stands, but parts of it appear to be incomplete - I was redirected here from a search for the Philosophy of Art, which meant that I expected to find more about the Philosophy of Art than there currently is. In particular, the section on the value of art is appalling - by being just a paragraph of questions, it implies that there's been no significant work done in this area to answer those questions, because (to the mind of the average reader) otherwise it would have been mentioned. I've only recently begun studying the Philosophy of Art so I'll try pulling something together when I've learned more (unless someone else can do it sooner?), but until then because that section needs expanding I'd say this article isn't ready for nomination for featured article. Anria 12:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it is my bias here, but if we want to expand the Philosophy of Art angle much let's create a philosophy of art page, move the redirects and link it from here. There is a lot of work done in philosophy of art, but there is very little consensus. Serious attempts to answer the many questions I mentioned would be of the form X argues Y about topic Z, A argues B about topic Z, D argues E about topic Z, and I worried that would clutter up a page that already almost too long, and very prone to each discipline coming in and cluttering. As we have done with most other disciplines, lets try to keep philosophy to a short paragraph here and allow an expansion page for all the arguing betwen Brand, and Cohen and Blocker and whatnot. Bmorton3 13:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that there was a reason for the Philosophy of Art search to redirect here - something along the lines of a discussion leading to a redirect, I think (relatively new Wikipedian; please forgive silly assumptions :)) - but that suggestion is definitely a better one in the interest of avoiding clutter to an already long article. This page would still need editing, but that could wait until a Philosophy of Art page was up. Anria 13:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I suspect there are 2 main reasons. 1) Philosophy is in bad shape on WP, the Aesthetics Project folded for lack of anyone willing to work on it, (I was the only active member last time I checked) and much of the rest of philosophy is struggling. 2) It is a common mistake to think that philosophy of art and aesthetics are synonymous, or perhaps this is a common position and it is my POV (and others) that they are not synonymous. Bmorton3 14:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golden ratio

I think the golden ratio is relavent to this article and it should be at least mentioned somewhere. 71.250.35.162 15:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the kitten image should be replaced by the following image, as the kitten is a sign of cuteness, not of aesthetics. -- ExpImp^{talk con} 17:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The kittens are there because cuteness is a variety of aesthetic judgment, and it is important to understand that beauty is NOT the only form of aesthetic judgment, a common error. But how's this compromise, we put the Partheon up front, move the kittens next to the maggots, and ax the Mona Lisa (which is too long for the text, and we already have plenty of paintings anyway)? Bmorton3 18:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. And I love coming across the phrase "move the kittens next to the maggots." I'll suggest that to my wife when I get home from work. Cheers, -Anthony Krupp 18:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

ROFLMAO-- ExpImp^{talk con} 22:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

When we are at it, why not scrap the Walkman in "Industrial Design" and replace it with the Barcelona chair or the original iMac?-- ExpImp^{talk con} 22:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factors in aesthetic judgement cleanup

"Seeing a sublime view of a landscape may make us stop and softly say "wow" while our heart skips a beat and then races faster and our eyes widen." - Changed to "Seeing a sublime view of a landscape may give us a reaction of awe, which might manifest physically as an increased heart rate or widened eyes." I felt that the former was too informal and read clumsily.

"Perhaps we judge a Lamborghini to be beautiful partly because it is desirable as a status symbol. Perhaps we judge it to be repulsive partly because it signifies for us over-consumption of gasoline and offends our political or moral values." - changed to "We might judge a Lamborghini to be beautiful partly because it is desirable as a status symbol, or we might judge it to be repulsive partly because it signifies for us over-consumption of gasoline and offends our political or moral values." The "perhaps we judge" gives possible reasons for a judgement that we actually hold, rather than speculating about judgements that we might hold.

I also added paragraph breaks where appropriate. Anria 08:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] aesthetician shouldn't take you to this page

An Aesthetician is someone that is skilled in giving facials, manicures, pedicures, and other beauty treatments. It's someone involved in human aesthetics. They should have their own entry.

[edit] Industrial Aesthetics

Aesthetics in Industrial Design is itself a large topic. A separate topic should be added with cross-referencing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nitinmittal (talk • contribs) 06:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC).