Yes, but perception is its own minefield, to my mind. Still, if you have opinions you want to share ... — javra

A painting is a perception; an image. Any work of art is a perception. Not perception of something, but a physical form of perception. So the artist puts things together to form a single perception.

The etymology of "aesthetic" is Greek for sense perception. Thus, aesthetics is about perception.
Why do art works get called "aesthetic?" Because they're made to be perceived.

I think I understand this, but have trouble with "feminine attributes." For example, a beautiful sunset. How are its properties feminine? — Jackson

What comes to my mind: soft, delicate, translucent ... not what one typically attributes to the state of being handsome but, instead, being (at least modern day) archetypal aspects of femininity.

As an aside: In Romanian, which as a Latin language is heavily gendered, there is no equivalent to either "beautiful" or "handsome" - which are gendered terms - but instead all aspects of these attributes are described by one word: "frumusețe" which can take on either a masculine or feminine form. This tends to produce a different semantic understanding, imv. In English, because there's the dichotomy between "beautiful" and "handsome", there's a lot more ambiguities as to what "beauty" denotes. This even though, if you go by definition alone, all cases of "handsome" should be subsets of that which is "beautiful". But again, its not a good idea to say to a heterosexual guy that he looks beautiful.

A painting is a perception; an image. Any work of art is a perception. Not perception of something, but a physical form of perception. So the artists puts things together to form a single perception. — Jackson

Agreed.

What comes to my mind: soft, delicate, translucent ... not what one typically attributes to the state of being handsome but, instead, being (at least modern day) archetypal aspects of femininity. — javra

In the US there is a belief that art and appreciating beauty is a feminine quality. Like being sensitive.

Added: Which may explain why aesthetics is the least popular specialty in philosophy. All about the 'hard' sciences and not sissy stuff like art.

As an aside: In Romanian, which as a Latin language is heavily gendered, there is no equivalent to either "beautiful" or "handsome" - which are gendered terms - but instead all aspects of these attributes are described by one word: "frumusețe" which can take on either a masculine or feminine form. This tends to produce a different semantic understanding, imv. In English, because there's the dichotomy between "beautiful" and "handsome", there's a lot more ambiguities as to what "beauty" denotes. This even though, if you go by definition alone, all cases of "handsome" should be subsets of that which is "beautiful". But again, its not a good idea to say to a heterosexual guy that he looks beautiful. — javra

:up:

There's a brand of philosophy which has as a tenet the belief that language & culture produce distinctive worldviews. In a sense people with different languages inhabit different realms, literally.

The limits of my language are the limits of my world. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

In the US there is a belief that art and appreciating beauty is a feminine quality. Like being sensitive. — Jackson

Even so, I say, bullocks. What effective advertisement does not incorporate some form of art? One doesn't need sensitivity to be affected by advertisement. As to the appreciation of beauty, plenty of rough and calloused men who can and do appreciate beauty, as in that which can be found among women.

But yes, there's the prejudice toward so called artsy-fartsy folk. Granted.

What effective advertisement does not incorporate some form of art? One doesn't need sensitivity to be affected by advertisement. — javra

Yes. I find it humorous the way some folk post videos as if looking at pictures tells a self evident story.

There's a brand of philosophy which has as a tenet the belief that language & culture produce distinctive worldviews. In a sense people with different languages inhabit different realms, literally. — Agent Smith

Yes, I'm familiar with it. To a large extent I'm in agreement. Reminds me of Aikido philosophy which, from my readings, in part affirms that each of us are the center of our own world, so to speak (i.e., hold unique understandings of the world that surrounds). Yet I nevertheless find there's still a universal reality that binds, or else tethers, all these different cultures and languages and worldviews to a common set of truths. It's why science works so well when it comes to the empirical stuff.

OK, but isn't the artwork nevertheless aesthetic to the beholder(s) even if not beautiful? — javra

To be honest, I don't really judge a work by whether or not it's beautiful or whether the experience of it is beautiful. I judge by whether or not I am moved - emotionally, sensually, or intellectually. Changed. For an experience to be beautiful, aesthetic, it must be moving.

So, yes. I can be moved by an artwork that isn't conventionally beautiful.

Yes, I'm familiar with it. To a large extent I'm in agreement. Reminds me of Aikido philosophy which, from my readings, in part affirms that each of us are the center of our own world, so to speak (i.e., hold unique understandings of the world that surrounds). Yet I nevertheless find there's still a universal reality that binds, or else tethers, all these different cultures and languages and worldviews to a common set of truths. It's why science works so well when it comes to the empirical stuff. — javra

Science, as you already know, is the common denominator, not a 100% of the time though (re Creationism, ID).