Aesthetics/Feelings/Judgments

[artisticsolution]

Challenge Accepted This is for Marjoramblues. In response to the quoted post below in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=16&p=111862#p111862

I believe most if not all judgments = aesthetics.

by artisticsolution, 'Socratic Method is defined as entrapment' thread, June 21, 11.58.

I wonder how many times in a thread ( pick your topic) where there have been claims such as this which lie unchallenged.
Perhaps because people don't have the time/energy/inclination to follow them up...or the window of opportunity closes...as the conversation flows on, or not. Have you ever written something hoping that someone would challenge but which appears to have gone unnoticed - been surprised at the lack of a philosophical response ?

I skimmed past this one of AS because it was a 'biggie' worthy of its own thread.

AS, I note, has an understandable 'thing' about 'A/aesthetics'. But has it ever been satisfactorily defined ?

After a quick 'search' I pulled a few of AS' thoughts:
1. ' the idea we have of 'truth' may be based in our inability to step outside aesthetics to imagine a different viewpoint that we are comfortable with' - from 'What's stopping us from seeing the truth', June 27, 5.23.

2. ' to me aesthetics is more about deceiving yourself with illusions that you hold as logical - when in fact they are not. Ego wants to show you the logic in its behaviour - even if such logic is illogical it will take pride in defending that logic. What I am talking about is an illusion so intense that it is impervious to logic. It is so strong that it knows no ego. It simply is.
This is what I mean by aesthetics/feelings/judgments' - from Socratic method is defined as entrapment', Jun 21, 11.58.
{my bolds}

So, in 1. it appears that aesthetics is used in a very broad sense to mean something like our own subjective sense ( isn't this 'ego' ?)
in 2. a deceptively-held intense illusion of illogical behaviour which just 'is' and 'knows no ego' ? ( but isn't this pure ego ?)
( if I've interpreted correctly - a bit difficult to follow )
And how can all that mean 'aesthetics/feelings/judgments' ?

I think that it is clear that some sentences or claims dropped into a discussion - give much pause for thought and questioning. What is it about this PN forum, or psychology of participants, which makes it difficult to start up a new thread based on a great/valuable post ?

Hi marjoramblues,

I am sorry about seeming like I am evading your 'challenge.' I didn't think you were serious when you first made the 'challenge' a while back...and then I didn't see this post until tonight! I have been sick since Sunday and was unable to get out of bed for a couple of days so I completely missed this. I am all better now though.

I have no problem explaining what I mean...but when you take a few things I have said out of the context...even I can't remember what I was thinking! LOL I have to go back and read my whole post to have that eureka moment of what I meant. Sorry!

But the truth is I can't speak for others...of course...I can only give my account why I think they do some of the same things as myself and what I have discovered about 'truth' by being an artist...that perhaps gave me a different perspective on things.

'[aesthetics/feelings/judgments'....hmmmm...like I said...I don't think it is something that I can explain in one sentence. But I will try to give you an concrete example of what I mean in a longer version...sorry for the length.

Okay...concrete example....In art....when one wants to make a realistic drawing (or for our purpose...we will say one wants to get at the "truth" of the vision we see before us instead of what we think we see) one first has to see the big shapes and how they relate to one another. If you notice...some 'realistic' drawings are more successful than others i.e. they look more like the subject matter (oh and I might add...I am not talking about one type of art being better than another here...I am talking simply about representing the 'truth' of the visual)

Okay...so if we look at a still life for example...we want to judge the angles and the distance from each object to another so that we see the 'truth' of the visual of the still life we want to accurately describe with our art. There are alot more steps we must take to render and accurate likeness in order for it to 'appear' realistically truthful, but we won't go into that here as it is not about the art 'lesson' but more about the seeing of 'truth' in painting realism.

Okay...so we begin to draw...knowing full well what we intend to portray...i.e.'the truth of the subject' and yet....we make mistakes. Mistakes might be slight or huge depending on the skill of the artist...which we will say represents the 'judgment' of the artist. It is difficult sometimes for the artist to understand where he went wrong in his judgment...he will ask himself, "I drew what I saw before me...why does it not look the same?" I am saying that it might be because our feelings about an aesthetic clouds our judgement. We 'feel' we see something in a place that it isn't...and we don't even know why sometimes. If we didn't succeed in accurately judging the lines of the object that we were painting...most just chalk it up to, "Well, obviously I don't have talent...or an artist eye (or whatever)." But this is illogical...because the distance between objects is simply math...if one has the ability to learn how to add and subtract...one certainly has the ability to learn how to judge distances.

Not only that, if the person painting, who might be able to understand where they went wrong in their task were shown a snapshot of the thing they were trying to paint...on a grid....side by side along with their unsuccessful painting with the same grid and the same size...they would be acutely aware of where they went wrong. The truth would be staring them in the face...and it was there all along! the only difference being...is the painter could not 'see' the mistakes without the grid!

Now I ask you....it's 2 simple grids placed over two pictures. Why do we even need them to see truth? Is it that hard to be able to look at something with out a grid for reference and be able to tell the distance apart? Couldn't we also take a ruler...and measure the distance if we were unsure? In fact...even master artists use objects sometimes to measure the size and distance of an object...Have you ever seen them holding up their thumbs? Well this is because they do not wish to be fooled by their 'eye'. They want to accurately paint what they are seeing...instead of what they think they are seeing.
In other words...they want to paint truth.

Now....take what I have said...and then imagine it in the context of what we hold as 'truth'. Is it not possible that what our egos tell us is 'truth' is perhaps a misrepresentation of truth? Is it possible that when a scientist discovers new things...that what he has done is actually looked outside of his 'aesthetics' in order to 'see' a thing in a more logical way? In a way that is not fooled by his emotion or his aesthetic judgment? Like seeing a painting through a grid? Take Einstein for example....he made a discovery that opened alot of eyes....and even to the most dense of us...when it is explained in simplistic terms...it makes absolute sense...at least in the beginning when he was describing the problem and how he came to a solution of the theory of relativity. I see this as his stripping away the aesthetic to get to truth. And I think the first step toward understanding we have a problem is admitting it...lol...we're did I get that line? Can't remember...musta heard it through the grapevine. lol I just think it's hard to admit that most of us are blinded in that area...perhaps because we take pride in being able to see 'truth'. I dunno.

I hope this make sense.

[marjoramblues]

Hello AS and all -

Thanks,AS, for taking the time to reply to my question. And hopefully your response is not just for 'marjoramblues' but for everyone to consider...
Again, no need to apologise for any 'delays' - we have all the time in the world - and glad you are feeling better.
You are right, it is difficult to think back to particular meanings within threads. The examples were only to highlight your use of the word 'aesthetics'; and also how you seemed to lump it in with 'feelings' and 'judgements'. Do you seem them as all meaning the same ?

Your statement that 'I believe most, if not all, judgments= aesthetics' jumped out at me as being a point of view, strongly held. And open to analysis and query...

Like I said, the topic is a 'biggie' so I wasn't expecting a one-sentence answer - whole books and theories have been written - and it is clear that this thread could jump all over the place

I've read what you have written - and will have to return to it - later.

In the meantime, re your statement of belief - do you think it would be worthwhile to start with some definitions ?

Thanks again, AS -

[marjoramblues]

OK, AS, taking your statement: 'I believe most, if not all, judgments= aesthetics' as a starting point:

Let us first look at what you mean or understand by 'aesthetics' ?

I ask this because there are so many philosophical theories and dictionary definitions of aesthetic/s out there, it would be good to clarify how you are using the word.

From the OED:

Aesthetic/s: (adj) concerned with beauty or appreciation of beauty>of pleasing appearance>Aesthetics movements 'art for art's sake, rejects notion that art should have a social or moral purpose.

(singular noun): a set of principles underlying the work of a particular artist or artistic movement. Eg artisticsolution's aesthetics.

{ is this the same as personal beliefs ? based on a system of rules according to self or a certain group ?}

(plural noun): 1. a set of principles concerned with nature and appreciation of beauty, especially in art.
2. the branch of philosophy which deals with questions of beauty and artistic taste.

another definition I found ( ?reference) 'the study of the rules and principles of art'

And for a more philosophical perspective - one look at eg the on-line standford encyclopedia throws up multiple entries under 'aesthetics'.
Page1/10 offers up: Environmental aesthetics; Dewey's aesthetics; Beardsley's; Hegel's; Goodman's; Feminist; Wittgenstein's...

We are quite spoiled for choice

So, next I will try and respond to your earlier posting which seemed to focus more on 'truth'...

[marjoramblues]

Hard work all this - is it worth it ?

AS: ... the truth is I can't speak for others...of course...I can only give my account why I think they do some of the same things as myself and what I have discovered about 'truth' by being an artist...that perhaps gave me a different perspective on things.

MB: So, this is your 'truth' (? belief ) about 1. why you think others sometimes act as you do 2. your perception of 'truth' from being an artist (?producer of art) What about your other beliefs/judgments from the perspective of a mother/daughter/consumer ?

AS: '[aesthetics/feelings/judgments'....hmmmm...like I said...I don't think it is something that I can explain in one sentence. But I will try to give you an concrete example of what I mean in a longer version...sorry for the length.

MB: Is one concrete example sufficient to explain your belief that 'most if not all judgments=aesthetics' ? And do you see aesthetics/feelings/judgments as distinct concepts ?

AS: Okay...concrete example....In art....when one wants to make a realistic drawing (or for our purpose...we will say one wants to get at the "truth" of the vision we see before us instead of what we think we see) one first has to see the big shapes and how they relate to one another. If you notice...some 'realistic' drawings are more successful than others i.e. they look more like the subject matter (oh and I might add...I am not talking about one type of art being better than another here...I am talking simply about representing the 'truth' of the visual)

MB: A realistic drawing of the 'truth' of the vision instead of what we think we see...hmmm....
1. we see - a bowl of fruit
2. we think we see a bowl of fruit
3. the 'truth' of what we see
4. a drawing of this 'truth'

We see a bowl of fruit - what else could it be - how could we think we are seeing something else ? Realistic as compared with what - impressionistic ? but doesn't this mean that your explanation excludes too much which is of aesthetic value?
How do you define 'succesful' - by accuracy alone ?

AS: Okay...so if we look at a still life for example...we want to judge the angles and the distance from each object to another so that we see the 'truth' of the visual of the still life we want to accurately describe with our art. There are alot more steps we must take to render and accurate likeness in order for it to 'appear' realistically truthful, but we won't go into that here as it is not about the art 'lesson' but more about the seeing of 'truth' in painting realism.

MB: 'accurately describe' - translate into 'copy' ? 'appear realistically truthful' - therefore not exact, and my question was not about 'seeing the truth' in painting realism. However, I note that one definition of 'aesthetics' is : the study of the rules and principles of art'.

AS: Okay...so we begin to draw...knowing full well what we intend to portray...i.e.'the truth of the subject'

MB: ? again, do you mean an accurate/exact copy - is that the only intention of the artist ? where does imagination or interpretation fit in to this narrow framework ?

AS: and yet....we make mistakes. Mistakes might be slight or huge depending on the skill of the artist...which we will say represents the 'judgment' of the artist.

MB: Mistakes in art, or errors of judgment, not applying the 'rules' - luckily are not matters of life or death. Again - a narrow perspective excluding judgments in law/ethics/religion.

AS: It is difficult sometimes for the artist to understand where he went wrong in his judgment...he will ask himself, "I drew what I saw before me...why does it not look the same?" I am saying that it might be because our feelings about an aesthetic clouds our judgement.

MB: my bolds highlighting the 3 words whose meanings are under consideration - here meaning what exactly ?
Feelings: ? reaction/emotion/perception/intuitions
Aesthetic: an X - ? an object in art or nature
Judgement: ? accurate measurement/ artistic skill/decision

AS: We 'feel' we see something in a place that it isn't...and we don't even know why sometimes. If we didn't succeed in accurately judging the lines of the object that we were painting...most just chalk it up to, "Well, obviously I don't have talent...or an artist eye (or whatever)." But this is illogical...because the distance between objects is simply math...if one has the ability to learn how to add and subtract...one certainly has the ability to learn how to judge distances.

MB: 'Artist eye' ? all about measuring distances, nothing else? do all artists apply maths to their work - if so, that alone ? 'Artists' can be applied to writers etc...

AS: Not only that, if the person painting, who might be able to understand where they went wrong in their task were shown a snapshot of the thing they were trying to paint...on a grid....side by side along with their unsuccessful painting with the same grid and the same size...they would be acutely aware of where they went wrong. The truth would be staring them in the face...and it was there all along! the only difference being...is the painter could not 'see' the mistakes without the grid!

MB: what would make the painting 'unsuccesful' as a work of art - being out by a centimetre ?
Why would you want an exact copy of a photograph ( assuming that this too is accurate )
The 'truth' needs a grid, or a ruler ? Truth= accuracy; true or false ?

AS: Now I ask you....it's 2 simple grids placed over two pictures. Why do we even need them to see truth? Is it that hard to be able to look at something with out a grid for reference and be able to tell the distance apart? Couldn't we also take a ruler...and measure the distance if we were unsure? In fact...even master artists use objects sometimes to measure the size and distance of an object...Have you ever seen them holding up their thumbs? Well this is because they do not wish to be fooled by their 'eye'. They want to accurately paint what they are seeing...instead of what they think they are seeing.
In other words...they want to paint truth.

MB: this is about technicalities of art - a narrow view of aesthetics, and dare I say it, the 'truth' whatever that is ?

AS: Now....take what I have said...and then imagine it in the context of what we hold as 'truth'.

MB: Why ? And what do you think 'we hold as 'truth'' ?

AS: Is it not possible that what our egos tell us is 'truth' is perhaps a misrepresentation of truth?
MB: What do you mean by 'our egos' - and what has this to do with aesthetics/feelings/judgments ?

AS: Is it possible that when a scientist discovers new things...that what he has done is actually looked outside of his 'aesthetics' in order to 'see' a thing in a more logical way? In a way that is not fooled by his emotion or his aesthetic judgment? Like seeing a painting through a grid? Take Einstein for example....he made a discovery that opened alot of eyes....and even to the most dense of us...when it is explained in simplistic terms...it makes absolute sense...at least in the beginning when he was describing the problem and how he came to a solution of the theory of relativity. I see this as his stripping away the aesthetic to get to truth. And I think the first step toward understanding we have a problem is admitting it...lol...we're did I get that line? Can't remember...musta heard it through the grapevine. lol I just think it's hard to admit that most of us are blinded in that area...perhaps because we take pride in being able to see 'truth'. I dunno.

MB: Scientific discoveries can arise from mistakes/dreams/imagination; building on the previous...wondering 'what if...'
What do you mean by 'outside his aesthetics' - beliefs ?
How does this compare with your 'ruled' example which would rule out such creativity ?
What is the 'problem' - not seeing the 'truth' - what truth - why blinded and what blinds us - preconceptions - by strict adherehce to 'rules' ?

[artisticsolution]

Hi marjoramblues,

MB: Hard work all this - is it worth it ?

AS: LOL I have been asking myself the same question lately. Sorry I have not gotten back to you in a while...I meant to...I always appreciate your perspective on things. I am without work (which is very rare for me...usually I have at least one project keeping me busy). I am a little scared....and working my butt off trying to drum up business...so far I have only 2 prospects....1 is a front door which I will hopefully paint on tues (in the blazing heat I might add )....and 2 is a watercolor I did of a friend who wants to make a deal with me when she gets back into town. And this is supposed to pay my bills? Um...not! LOL...where did that tangent come from...sorry! Back to your post....


MB: So, this is your 'truth' (? belief ) about 1. why you think others sometimes act as you do 2. your perception of 'truth' from being an artist (?producer of art) What about your other beliefs/judgments from the perspective of a mother/daughter/consumer ?

AS:1. I don't know if I would call it truth...I just think that it is probable....in a world of billions of people, I believe it is probable that at least one of those people act and think as I do. It seems just as probable as the probability they will be born with 2 arms and 2 legs. But again...that is all aesthetics telling me this. My judgment is based on my desire to know. My desire to know is based on aesthetics....because I feel I can't know for certain if things are the way they appear to me. There is always a probability they are not. 2. Yes, those are helpful too....but sometimes love can blind on from seeing truth as it pertains to 'reality'...by 'reality' I mean something that can be communicated...i.e. I can show you the distance between objects by using a ruler but I cannot tell you the exact nature of my love. Only I am privy to that judgment. Still, both are grounded in the aesthetic, I think.

MB: Is one concrete example sufficient to explain your belief that 'most if not all judgments=aesthetics' ? And do you see aesthetics/feelings/judgments as distinct concepts ?

AS: I think it is...simply because the example I give had to do with comparing what I 'see' with what is there. I believe someone smarter than I am could go beyond the example I gave and take what I see and show me how I missed something and explain to me why I missed it, and so on.... It's not so much about the example as it is the method of wanting to know 'truth' that is similar in people. Exposing something through communication....how can it not be based in the aesthetic? The aesthetic being a desire to communicate...the anesthetic being the desire to judge...the aesthetic being the desire for action.

MB: A realistic drawing of the 'truth' of the vision instead of what we think we see...hmmm....
1. we see - a bowl of fruit
2. we think we see a bowl of fruit
3. the 'truth' of what we see
4. a drawing of this 'truth'

We see a bowl of fruit - what else could it be - how could we think we are seeing something else ? Realistic as compared with what - impressionistic ? but doesn't this mean that your explanation excludes too much which is of aesthetic value?
How do you define 'succesful' - by accuracy alone ?

AS: No...I am not talking about the object we are viewing...I am talking about how we all draw it differently. Why should that be? If it is 'real' why do we all interpret it differently? I am saying that it might be because our judgment boils down to aesthetics.

If we took a photo and traced it...and the took our drawing based on the same photo and traced it...the took the 2 tracings and laid them side by side....why in most instances...did we draw something that was not there? Why are there subtle differences that our eye picked up that were not there? I say our eyes deceive us. Reality is distorted. But I believe there is a way to train ourselves to be less susceptible to allowing our aesthetic/judgement to fail us. And it is not just with art...that is just one example...it could be with anything...even love...but it's harder with love...cause the heart thinks it knows what it wants.

AS: Okay...so if we look at a still life for example...we want to judge the angles and the distance from each object to another so that we see the 'truth' of the visual of the still life we want to accurately describe with our art. There are alot more steps we must take to render and accurate likeness in order for it to 'appear' realistically truthful, but we won't go into that here as it is not about the art 'lesson' but more about the seeing of 'truth' in painting realism.

MB: ? again, do you mean an accurate/exact copy - is that the only intention of the artist ? where does imagination or interpretation fit in to this narrow framework ?

AS: Remember I said I was not talking about one type of art being better than another? Imagination is great! Interpretation is great! But they are not 'real' in terms of 'realistic' art. And they are not a universal 'truth' that the eye can see to measure with any accuracy in they are made up in one person's head...only that person will be the sole governor of the thing they imagined. Aesthetics/imagination/interpretation in such cases are allowing for 'non' truth...which is at it's core truth as well...but it is subjective truth that one makes up for aesthetic purposes as opposed to communicating an aesthetic that is more universal, where there can be an agreement between people as to what something is....like a bowl of fruit.

MB: Mistakes in art, or errors of judgment, not applying the 'rules' - luckily are not matters of life or death. Again - a narrow perspective excluding judgments in law/ethics/religion.

AS: What is law/ethics/religion but an aesthetic universal judgment ? Do we not have laws because many desire them? Do we not have religion because many desire to have a God? Do these things not represent our feelings about ethics and morality? Not only that....how many times has the law and religion actually caused more of the very thing they wish to eliminate? I wonder if there were no laws and no religion...and people just had to go on the honor system...if there would be better judgments...and why do we insist that there be laws and religion? It seems to me we have no clue if we are correct in our thinking they make the world a safer place to live in...as we have never really tested out the theory that having no laws would be worse. This is what I mean by aesthetic judgment values. How can we know? We only think we know...but it is quite possible that the world would be more ethical if there were no laws and no religion. It is also quite possible it would be worse. Why do we insist then...it would be worse and implement laws?

MB: my bolds highlighting the 3 words whose meanings are under consideration - here meaning what exactly ?
Feelings: ? reaction/emotion/perception/intuitions
Aesthetic: an X - ? an object in art or nature
Judgement: ? accurate measurement/ artistic skill/decision

AS: Feelings is accurate. By Aesthetics I mean not only an object in nature but anything that brings us to make a judgment or have a desire or provoke a feeling...it propels us....and is the basis upon which we are able to judge.
Judgment may be accurate or inaccurate. Judgement is driven by aesthetic which is why I lump them all together. To me they are the same and one can't exist without the other.

MB: 'Artist eye' ? all about measuring distances, nothing else? do all artists apply maths to their work - if so, that alone ? 'Artists' can be applied to writers etc...

AS: Please don't get hung up on the word artist. I mean artist in the sense that all of us are to some extent...that all of us are based in the aesthetic....be it a desire for art, writing, music, love, self, etc to propel us forward.


AS: Not only that, if the person painting, who might be able to understand where they went wrong in their task were shown a snapshot of the thing they were trying to paint...on a grid....side by side along with their unsuccessful painting with the same grid and the same size...they would be acutely aware of where they went wrong. The truth would be staring them in the face...and it was there all along! the only difference being...is the painter could not 'see' the mistakes without the grid!

MB: what would make the painting 'unsuccesful' as a work of art - being out by a centimetre ?
Why would you want an exact copy of a photograph ( assuming that this too is accurate )
The 'truth' needs a grid, or a ruler ? Truth= accuracy; true or false ?

AS:1st question: if someone wanted to paint something realistically and could not. 2nd question: If someone wanted to see if they could produce a visual that would be indistinguishable from the original. question 3: 'truth' in this case is the artist wanting to reproduce 'reality' in a way that would trick the eye (i.e. trompe l'oeil) into thinking it was a photograph. Why he would want to do this is up to the artist. I am sure there all sorts of reasons.

MB: this is about technicalities of art - a narrow view of aesthetics, and dare I say it, the 'truth' whatever that is ?

AS: It was not supposed to be a broad view...it was just one example. I don't think it possible to list every possible scenario that represents a universally held 'truth' as far as our beliefs/aesthetics go. That is exactly it..."truth' whatever that is?"

AS: Now....take what I have said...and then imagine it in the context of what we hold as 'truth'.

MB: Why ? And what do you think 'we hold as 'truth'' ?

AS: I don't know...whatever the majority of people hold as 'truth.' The sun setting and rising...their love for their heart's desire....the belief that the law and religion makes the world makes it a better place to live....the belief that it doesn't....
What I am saying...is suppose there is a way to logically use a means/method to see if we are right...to see if what we believe is accurate? Suppose a genius was able to prove that society would be better without laws or there was no god? Do you think we would give Laws or God or any of our firmly held beliefs up even if we knew we would be better off? I don't think we would...they are ingrained in the people of our generation. Perhaps a few generations down the line would give such things up...when the trends changed...but today...such 'truths' are clouded by our aesthetic.

MB: What do you mean by 'our egos' - and what has this to do with aesthetics/feelings/judgments ?

AS: If a scientist proved there was no God, there are people who would still believe. They hang on to the aesthetic. Now I ask you....is there anything that you believe that someone could provide truth that it isn't truth that you would be willing to give up such 'feeling' and use judgment to come to terms with a truth you may not like? Like for example, If you had a child who you loved more than anything in the world....if a scientist could show you a glimpse into the future....and could show you that this child you loved would grow up to kill you or someone else? Now supposed the scientist could send you back in time to be able to stop the conception of such child...but that would mean the child before you today would disappear and you would have to mourn it's loss today...would you do it? Could you? It's the aesthetic that drives our judgment....and I don't think it is possible to believe the truth of what is 'real' perhaps because our ego will not allow us to view certain firmly held beliefs in the harsh light of truth.

[marjoramblues]

AS

:...I believe someone smarter than I am could go beyond the example I gave and take what I see and show me how I missed something and explain to me why I missed it, and so on..

I can almost see that 'smarter person' now - rolling his/her eyes...
It would be wonderful if someone could sort out this tangled conversation we're having

Probably could be done in 3 easy steps - logically an' all that...
For now, I'll give it a rest.
It seems that I cannot get a grip on what you mean by 'aesthetics'

[artisticsolution]

AS

:...I believe someone smarter than I am could go beyond the example I gave and take what I see and show me how I missed something and explain to me why I missed it, and so on..

I can almost see that 'smarter person' now - rolling his/her eyes...
It would be wonderful if someone could sort out this tangled conversation we're having

Probably could be done in 3 easy steps - logically an' all that...
For now, I'll give it a rest.
It seems that I cannot get a grip on what you mean by 'aesthetics'

Sorry MB, I warned you that I was not a good communicator. LOL Maybe this definition will help...Wikipedia on aesthetics:

"Aesthetics (also spelled æsthetics or esthetics) is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste, with the creation and appreciation of beauty. It is more scientifically defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste. More broadly, scholars in the field define aesthetics as "critical reflection on art, culture and nature."

I put bold for emphasis.

To me aesthetics = desire... it propels us into action. Aesthetics is not just having to do with 'art and beauty'. Sometimes I think that there is an underlying prejudice when people hear the word 'aesthetics.' Aesthetics does not just mean things relating to art. And I think that most of that prejudice towards the word aesthetics comes from a general consensus that 'art' is not as important to our civilization as other things...such as science, math, logic and that since aesthetics = art in their eyes...makes it difficult for them to think of science et al being grouped under the aesthetic category as well.

But I think that the prejudice against 'art' as not being a serious discipline, does a disservice to the word 'aesthetics'. I believe aesthetics makes up every action we take...even in math and science or evil/good. Mathematicians do math because they desire to do math....scientists do science because they desire to do science....they are propelled to do it by a desire. That desire is aesthetically grounded. I believe it is the epitome of the definition of aesthetics.

Is it possible to do anything that is not based in desire? If we said, "I will do things I do not desire." That is still having desire...it's having the desire to not do things one desires. I don't think we can escape it.

[marjoramblues]

Guess it's time I responded...

I admit to being both confused and enlightened; truly in need a Guide for the Perplexed

First - the statement that 'Most, if not all, judgements=aesthetics'.
Questions raised in my mind:
1. what kind of judgments - aesthetic, legal, medical, personal, intellectual, political, factual...
2. what do you mean by aesthetics
3. what judgments would not = aesthetics. Would they be termed non-aesthetic or anaesthetic...and why would they not fit into the criteria for something being judged 'aesthetic' ?

Thanks, AS, for communicating your thoughts about this. I've read your words and tried to analyse and get to grips, but failed somewhat and so, rather than a point by point - I'll just go with the flow, for now...

- other notions added to the mix have been truth, value, reality, feelings, emotions, ego, logic, illusion, the artistic perspective, accuracy, rules, representations, misrepresentations, standards, subjectivity, objectivity.
To name a few...and then...Desire.

I understand that aesthetics is not confined to works of art. I can make an aesthetic judgment about a journey through a mountain valley; sitting by a stream of thought. I suppose I could make a nonaesthetic (?factual) judgment about a painting in the Tate Gallery - that is a painting that represents a bowl of fruit. Thinking of a painting as a representation or a copy doesn't mean that I think it is beautiful, or ugly.

For me, aesthetics is about judging whether something, someone, some place - is like 'wow!' or like 'whoa!' - or makes you think 'why?'.

Until now, I hadn't considered 'aesthetics' as a grounding for desire...as something that propels us into action.
I wonder if anyone else out there would care to comment...

[artisticsolution]

I understand that aesthetics is not confined to works of art. I can make an aesthetic judgment about a journey through a mountain valley; sitting by a stream of thought. I suppose I could make a nonaesthetic (?factual) judgment about a painting in the Tate Gallery - that is a painting that represents a bowl of fruit. Thinking of a painting as a representation or a copy doesn't mean that I think it is beautiful, or ugly.

Hi MB,

I am sorry I don't have time to reply in full...I had a thousand questions to ask you about your post...hopefully I will remember them later...I have a small painting job today! Yippee!

I don't understand what you are saying above. How is it possible to make a nonaesthetic judgement? What I mean is...if you see an artist's painting that represents a bowl of fruit...and factually we know it is a bowl of fruit...how does that account for the fact that we all could draw the same bowl of fruit and it would always be a different painting and provoke different reactions or desires...no matter how minutely different it might be someone could not help making a value judgment. Even if the vision of the bowl of fruit left us non reactive....would that not be a value judgment? On a scale from -10 to +10 doesn't 0 have a value judgment? Even if the value is no thing it is still something with which we can describe our 'feelings'...it makes the judgment that we have no feelings toward that certain object.

[marjoramblues]

I understand that aesthetics is not confined to works of art. I can make an aesthetic judgment about a journey through a mountain valley; sitting by a stream of thought. I suppose I could make a nonaesthetic (?factual) judgment about a painting in the Tate Gallery - that is a painting that represents a bowl of fruit. Thinking of a painting as a representation or a copy doesn't mean that I think it is beautiful, or ugly.

Hi MB,

I am sorry I don't have time to reply in full...I had a thousand questions to ask you about your post...hopefully I will remember them later...I have a small painting job today! Yippee!

I don't understand what you are saying above. How is it possible to make a nonaesthetic judgement? What I mean is...if you see an artist's painting that represents a bowl of fruit...and factually we know it is a bowl of fruit...how does that account for the fact that we all could draw the same bowl of fruit and it would always be a different painting and provoke different reactions or desires...no matter how minutely different it might be someone could not help making a value judgment. Even if the vision of the bowl of fruit left us non reactive....would that not be a value judgment? On a scale from -10 to +10 doesn't 0 have a value judgment? Even if the value is no thing it is still something with which we can describe our 'feelings'...it makes the judgment that we have no feelings toward that certain object.

I have the same difficulties with your posts - lots of questions - I did start replying on a point2point basis, but it became wearisome...and then I started reading stuff on-line, and my head started to spin off into the wild blue yonder.

OK, let's continue with 'judgments' of the nonaesthetic type. Let us call these 'factual' - this compares with a value judgment which accords 'value' to an object.

The example I used, above, was my 'judgment' of a painting in the Tate which I saw as a bowl of fruit. This might have been in response to a friend's question 'What on earth is that supposed to be?' { Seems that I am indeed 'hung up' on 'art', but I will attempt another example later}

We perceive, or judge, that 'what we are seeing' (X) is a painting of 'a bowl of fruit' (Y) but it might not be.
The representation (X) - is actually - the artist's interpretation of Z - 'a sunny day' ( not Y) - might simply be blobs of colour, intermingled with squares and lines.

Even, if it were a rep of a bowl of fruit...if we were describing it to a blind friend...we would first give a factual account - 'this is a painting by AS, it is a painting of a bowl of fruit' - this kind of judgment, or perception, is either true or false. The valuation, or aesthetic judgment, of it comes later. You can't have a value judgment without the initial perception. And isn't this how you defined 'aesthetics' - lumping it together with feelings, which include all the senses ?

Sunday, July 15th

By Aesthetics I mean not only an object in nature but anything that brings us to make a judgment or have a desire or provoke a feeling...it propels us....and is the basis upon which we are able to judge

An object in nature - rain. Factual judgment, looking out of window, early morning, bleary-eyes - 'it is raining'. Is this true or false. The judgment can be verified by going outside. It might be water from someone's garden sprinklers...
The value judgment comes after - ' it is raining'. Good - need water for the plants. Bad - the music festival will be cancelled, I want my money back. Wow - isn't that something - how cool - a guest from California - I want to go puddle sploshing...

[artisticsolution]

Oooooh...I see what you are saying now. No...I wasn't talking about that...I was talking more about what propels us to go over to the window in the first place. I was talking about even having the desire to make a judgment in the first place. We look out the window to see rain and make a judgment right? But why do we even look out the window in the first place in order to 'know' what the weather is like? What propels us to do that? I believe it is aesthetics.

[Thundril]

I'm loving this conversation. Best thing (well, one of the best things) on PN for ages. Keep it going!

[marjoramblues]

I'm loving this conversation. Best thing (well, one of the best things) on PN for ages. Keep it going!

You were doing so well, until the necessary qualification
Doncha think it might be better if more were round the table ? It's a strange thing about some threads - sometimes people jump in all over the place, willy nilly; other times not a flippin' squeak

[marjoramblues]

Oooooh...I see what you are saying now. No...I wasn't talking about that...I was talking more about what propels us to go over to the window in the first place. I was talking about even having the desire to make a judgment in the first place. We look out the window to see rain and make a judgment right? But why do we even look out the window in the first place in order to 'know' what the weather is like? What propels us to do that? I believe it is aesthetics.

What makes/prompts us to do anything ? How can it be an abstract concept like 'aesthetics' ?

[Satyr]

Value judgments are built on comparisons.
Self with the other or self with an average otherness or an otherness with an other.

The relationship of observer, judging mind, with other and of self determines the value judgments outcome.

In terms of aesthetics the fluid exhibits divergences of rates of flow which the mind interprets as form, color, texture, mass...in this case the value judgment is with the self interpreting.

Time is the deciding factor, as time is a measurement of change and change is the awareness of a discrepancy between continuous mental models, or abstractions.
The more timeless an otherness seems, the more resistant to change, the more stable or the closest towards the absolute it comes, all the more valuable it is to us. This is man's or a mind's attraction to order in a reality characterized by increasing disorder, or fragmentation.

If entropy is increasing then looking back to the past is looking into a state of more order....God and the Big Bang are examples of this order, projected as absolute.
Symmetry, order, to a higher degree than the average or to the one we perceive in ourselves is called "beauty".
Intelligence is a form of symmetry of mind.

Aesthetics, despite what most moderns wish were true, is not an illusion. Perception and cognition evolves to facilitate survival. that it manages to do so means that its methods have proven to be adequate thus far.
Our perceptions did not evolve to test our faith, to trick us. They evolved to aid an organism willfully guide its aggregate energies towards goals or ideals or object/objectives.
I aesthetically perceive the chemical composition of an apple, and perceive if it is ripe or not just by how it looks. I may not have precise information, codes to name the chemicals, a high powered microscope to peer into its depths but I do not really require one. The particular apple's entire past is manifest in its presence and how my brain interprets its presence, via an intermediate medium: light interacting with it and then with my sense organ.

In recent times men are being trained to doubt their own eyes. This to enable a more efficient form of mind-control.
When the world has been made into an illusion and your senses cannot be trusted then you must rely on authority figures who tell you what is what and how to judge and how to value.
Manipulating inherit existential anxieties is also a part of it. When the mind is offered the comforting idea that the world is not as it appears, but better, then it grasps this hypothesis with little forethought because the world as it appears is threatening, unflattering, full of uncertainty producing anxiety.