I’m guessing this guy’s a plumber. Not classically beautiful, I grant you. — praxis

Luminous with beauty.

Falkirk Wheel (Scotland).

As I previously shared in the 'currently reading' thread, I am reading Mircea Cărtărescu. He is from Romania, and he was born and raised in 1960s Bucharest. The two parts of his novel (Blinding) are a mix of dreams, memories, surrealism and nostalgia in the neighbourhood of his childhood. It also appears a red windmill that seemed to be very big, and the size of this construction impressed Mircea a lot and shows up in his dreams (and nightmares).

I tried to search on Google for the locations, and the results were fascinating.

"Stefan cel Mare" is the neighbourhood of Mircea. A brutalist Soviet-like building, but I like it. I feel positive vibrations, and the neighbourhood seemed to be vivid and full of joy:


It is very hard to find the red windmill on Google. Mircea says that it is located in 'Dambovita'.
Yet I guess it looked like this but red coloured:

Power back on, then?

Sí.

I am ready to talk about 'Divine Simplicity' with you again.

:wink:

The Banffy Castle—the main location where the Transylvanian trilogy is taking part. I am really enjoying these volumes written by Miklos Banffy.

In that period of time, early 20th century, the territory where the castle is located belonged to Hungary, and it was called Kolozsvár. But now belongs to Romanian territory, and it is called Cluj-Napoca.

Whenever I see an old pile like that all I can think of is how hard it would be to heat the bloody place! Probably my latent Calvinism.

:rofl:

Well, at least when Miklos Banffy was alive, it was sufficient to chop pieces of wood from the closest forest. But now I can't imagine how expensive the gas or power bill could be! Crazy!

This painting is beautiful, sincere, delicate, pleasant and with hints of melancholy.

Girl with Peaches by Valentin Serov.




It is (probably) one of the best paints I have ever seen, and it has become my favourite now.

The anemones are quite good this year.

Thanks for keeping this thread alive.

Girl with Peaches by Valentin Serov. — javi2541997

I was thinking about it some more. Maybe the girl was playing by herself, engrossed, and then someone, maybe one of her parents, came in and she became self-conscious.

Good point, Clarky.

I thought something similar: The girl seemed polite, and she felt self-conscious about wanting to eat the peaches in front of the person looking at her.

It is interesting that you and I perceived the same -- The girl felt self-conscious about something. I guess the expression of her eyes and the innocent position of her hands caught our attention.

It is interesting that you and I perceived the same -- The girl felt self-conscious about something. I guess the expression of her eyes and the innocent position of her hands caught our attention. — javi2541997

Collingwood says the purpose of art is to express the artist’s experience. Our goal in looking at art is to try to share that same experience with them.

Collingwood says the purpose of art is to express the artist’s experience. Our goal in looking at art is to try to share that same experience with them. — T Clark

My view of art is that it is a form of language, and the expression through painting is just another way of speaking, writing, or grunting.

The above comment therefore is a work of art, hopefully acheiving the goal of your sharing the experience I had of thinking it.

My view of art is that it is a form of language, and the expression through painting is just another way of speaking, writing, or grunting. — Hanover

I’m not being particularly facetious when I say maybe it is language that is a form of art.

I’m not being particularly facetious when I say maybe it is language that is a form of art. — T Clark

Language itself or how language is used? Do you have a favourite aesthetic experience out of poetry, painting, architecture or nature?

Language itself or how language is used? Do you have a favourite aesthetic experience out of poetry, painting, architecture or nature? — Tom Storm

That's right, there was some ambiguity there. My position was that language is any form of communication and that all forms of communication are representative, metaphoric, non-specific, and infused with personal perspective. That is, the line between what we designate as poetic and literal is arbitrary and that all is poetic at some level.

That's what I meant.

Maybe that's what @t clark meant as well, although he could just be saying that certain linguistic forms (but not all) are artistic, like poetry, music or the like.

But to your question asking whether one might have a favorite aesthetic experience, I think that's a valid question, but I would go as far as to say that everything provides an aesthtetic experience. Of course, this theory of mine isn't entirely developed and it could make no sense at some level, but that's my instinctive response.

I did find these quotes from Wittgenstein, where he apparently disagrees with my analysis:

"Do not forget that a poem, although it is composed in the language of information, is not used in the language-game of giving information."

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Zettel

"Philosophy ought really to be written only as a form of poetry. (Philosophie dürfte man eigentlich nur dichten.)"

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value

This suggests a poem, in being for a different purpose, is a different sort of language game. I can accept that different sentences might be for different purposes, but I can't see where the poetic game must be different than the literal game in all instances. That is, a poem can be used to give information, and I don't know how to work through what counts as "information" and what doesn't.

That is, there can be more beauty in an analytical essay than a limerick.

That's right, there was some ambiguity there. My position was that language is any form of communication and that all forms of communication are representative, metaphoric, non-specific, and infused with personal perspective. That is, the line between what we designate as poetic and literal is arbitrary and that all is poetic at some level.

That's what I meant. — Hanover

I can get behind that. Nice idea.

Language itself or how language is used? — Tom Storm

I must admit it was just a passing fancy and I haven’t put much thought in it. I guess that means I don’t know.

Do you have a favourite aesthetic experience out of poetry, painting, architecture or nature? — Tom Storm

Hard to pick just one. For poetry I’ll say “The Black Cottage” by Robert Frost. For architecture — Machu Picchu.

That is, there can be more beauty in an analytical essay than a limerick. — Hanover

I have made the argument that there is beauty in a set of construction specifications.

I have made the argument that there is beauty in a set of construction specifications. — T Clark

I find beauty in the diversity of personalities, including those so boring they find beauty in blueprints.

I find beauty in the diversity of personalities, including those so boring they find beauty in blueprints. — Hanover

For what it’s worth, I’ve also found beauty in well thought out and well written legal decisions.

For what it’s worth, I’ve also found beauty in well thought out and well written legal decisions. — T Clark

I just wrote what I consider a most beautiful work of art. It argued that the condominium covenants did not bind the association to protect against water heater leaks from individual units, but that obligation rested entirely with the individual unit owners. It was a work so maginficent, it made the Sistine Chapel look like a steaming pile of cat shit.

I just wrote what I consider a most beautiful work of art. It argued that the condominium covenants did not bind the association to protect against water heater leaks from individual units, but that obligation rested entirely with the individual unit owners. It was a work so maginficent, it made the Sistine Chapel look like a steaming pile of cat shit. — Hanover

But seriously, don’t you ever read a legal argument or decision that you think is beautiful, wonderful? I do.

But seriously, don’t you ever read a legal argument or decision that you think is beautiful, wonderful. I do. — T Clark

As if all you have to say is "but seriously" and that will somehow keep me on task?

But seriously, I think you're using the term "beautiful" here in a pretty broad way, so maybe a legal argument could be beautiful, but not like a sunset. This issue isn't a small one because the definition of "beauty" is obviously central to aesthetics and this whole conversation.

So, define "beauty" so that the term makes sense in claiming a legal brief is beautiful in some way as is a sunset beautiful so that the term can be applied to both. I would think the similarity would rest somewhere in the feeling evoked from both, but I'm not really sure.

What saith Collingswood on it?

But seriously, I think you're using the term "beautiful" here in a pretty broad way, so maybe a legal argument could be beautiful, but not like a sunset — Hanover

Really? So, of all people, it is you who is the one who reduces such a wide and ever reaching concept to something so primal. "Visually satisfying or enjoyable." That's what beauty is now.

So a blind person can never experience something beautiful. It's just an alien concept exclusive to those who have perfect or otherwise functional vision. For shame. Hanover. For shame. And I looked up to you as a great mind, legal and otherwise. Thankfully I discovered my idol had feet of clay before it fell atop me. Note the circular ellipsis or whatever you spout on about.

My view of art is that it is a form of language, and the expression through painting is just another way of speaking, writing, or grunting. — Hanover

For some reason in this thread I have this post of yours quoted, so I'll include surely it only ages to show my point. For shame!

It's just an alien concept exclusive to those who have perfect or otherwise functional vision — Outlander

I don't see how you derived that from what I said. The blind can have feelings of beauty, but obviously not from what they see. The question was what was consistent within the term "beauty" that makes it apply across all uses of the term beauty (which could include written essays, sunsets, music, or whatever).

For some reason in this thread I have this post of yours quoted, so I'll include surely it only ages to show my point. For shame! — Outlander

I really don't follow how I've been incosistent is arguing that all language offers some degree of metaphor and then in my asking for a definition of beauty that allows it to apply across diverse experiences. I might generously read in that you're suggesting if art is omnipresent in communication than beauty must also be (which might be true if all art must contain beauty), but that hardly is contradicted by my asking for a definition of art.

I don't see how you derived that from what I said. — Hanover

a legal argument could be beautiful, but not like a sunset. — Hanover

Well, now you do. Or at least should.

This seems to suggest speech cannot ever amount to something visual. Which, sure, the old saying goes "a picture is worth 1,00 words." So you have that on your side. But as an absolute? Well, perhaps it's simply nothing those of us sighted can truly imagine, now is it?

The question was what was consistent within the term "beauty" that makes it apply across all uses of the term beauty (which could include written essays, sunsets, music, or whatever). — Hanover

Sure, if we dictate that beauty means "that which one [perhaps greatly or transcendentally] appreciates [over what is common, if not to the individual's experience or perspective]." This is a simple (albeit crude and lacking) term that would seem to cover all. So, if this is true, how am I incorrect?

I really don't follow how I've been incosistent is arguing that all language offers some degree of metaphor and then in my asking for a definition of beauty that allows it to apply across diverse experiences. — Hanover

My view of art is that it is a form of language — Hanover

See, this is where I take offense (not really, just hypothetically in an intellectual "debate for debate sake" kind of way). You first claim "art" is a form of language. Meaning it can be fully, or at least sufficiently experienced by those who are limited to such (say, the blind). Yet, people who can see enjoy art and visual experiences, they consider this a staple of the human experience. Do you disagree? Regardless, art is a billion dollar industry. Visual experience is what most people consider to be fundamental to the human experience. So, unless all these people are just wasting their money and the world is full of basically adult children gazing into a simple machine like a kaleidoscope, mistaking art and visual perception as a sort of "empty nothingness" that could easily be replaced by,language, I see a bit of inconsistency. That is to say a bit of lack of thoroughness.

You first claim "art" is a form of language. Meaning it can be fully, or at least sufficiently experienced by those who are limited to such (say, the blind). Yet, people who can see enjoy art and visual experiences, they consider this a staple of the human experience. Do you disagree? — Outlander

What I mean is that all language is a form of poetry to the extent it is an abstraction of reality highly influenced by perspective and comparitive evaluation (i.e. metaphor). Along with this expansive view of language, I accept art as language, as being a form of communication formed through symbolism to communicative thought.

Your need to isolate visual art as being of some special category of art that needs to be discussed is elusive as is your need to protect the blind from what you envision are attacks on their limitations.