Can we agree on properties that give beauty or harmony in objects, humans, artworks and phenomena? — Eros1982

No.

If yes, why we see all kind of government/political intrusions into aesthetics: through educating kids, through promoting "artworks" and "artists" who are politically correct, through declaring poets people who are not poets, through staging "plays" that are anything but plays, through turning political agendas into "excellent scripts" for movies, etc.? — Eros1982

I don't see how government or politics, at least in the US, is making significant "intrusions into aesthetics." Do you really object to public education? On aesthetic grounds? What governmental or political institution has promoted artworks and artists who are politically correct in a significant way? Called people who are not poets poets? Staged plays that aren't plays? Turned political agendas into scripts?

Should philosophers and simple humans give up the idea that beauty and ugliness result from certain features and/or properties? — Eros1982

Yes... maybe.

Should philosophers and simple humans give up the idea that beauty and ugliness may result from certain features and/or properties? — Eros1982

If they do so, what is the core of aesthetics then?

If yes, why we see all kinds of political intrusions into aesthetics: through educating kids, through promoting "artworks" and "artists" who are politically correct, — Eros1982

I don't know if I am follow you correctly, but are you trying to make an argument against all of those so called "modern artists" who are irrelevant but they think they do art because they are financed by the state? Because I think we can be agree in this point.

There has been always involvement of governments in aesthetics. In communist and fascist countries the involvement has been very harsh. In liberal countries it has been through soft means. A good example is Germany, which has seen all kinds of involvements: nazi, communist and liberal.

Before Hitler came to power Germany had one of the greatest cinemas in the world. Seeing German movies from 1920s is really amazing (some of these movies made a trend called German Expressionism). Today German cinema is inferior to Italian, French, American, British and Japanese cinemas. One of the reasons, I believe, German cinema is inferior it has to do with its tendency to correct German history and politics. Italians had a fascist government and many communist directors. Though there are some politics in Italian and French movies, you will not see it in the same degree and intensity as in German movies. I have come to believe that the obsession of German directors with their country's past have made them less appealing (than Americans and Italians let's say) to the rest of the world. If someone asked me about a German director (after World War II) whom I should suggest, I might say Rainer Werner Fassbinder and two or three more. If someone, however, asks me about Italian, British and French directors who should be seen, I might suggest more than 20. This is what happens in US universities, also. If you go to learn about films in US universities, I guess you will hear more Italian and French directors, than Germans --just because in my view Italians and French tend to be less political than Germans of postwar era.

With regard to your question, being irrelevant is not the worst thing. Shakespeare might be irrelevant to me, but I see that his plays are filled with wit and tension (though his messages do not touch me at all -- I might find Euripides and Calderon de La Barca more touching than Shakespeare, though I can't say that the first are more artsy than the second). The worst thing is to change people's tastes and intelligence in order to correct their social/political behavior. This has happened in many communist countries. Some of these countries produce more movies and artworks than Europe and UK, but their movies and artworks do not appeal to anyone abroad. And then you have some small countries like Sweden and Finland, with movie-makers and musicians appealing to the whole world. The question now for Sweden, Finland and the rest of EU is to what extent they are willing to accept political intrusion into aesthetics? Are they going to follow the Soviet, the German or the Italian example? The first being the most harsh, the second middle and the Italian the most free in my view.

To conclude, we can leave aside all the debate about politics and we can raise more general questions: Is the way to taste beauty based on real properties or is it a human/social convention? If there are real properties in Aesthetics, should we alienate those in order to settle political/social disputes? Are these aesthetical tastes somehow related to my intelligence and the way I appreciate myself, the whole world and humankind?

These were a few questions that I don't have clear-cut answers. But I do think that they are important for me.

Can we agree on properties that give beauty or harmony in objects, humans, artworks and phenomena? — Eros1982

Perhaps, but good luck trying to identify just what they are.

Can we agree on properties that give beauty or harmony in objects, humans, artworks and phenomena? — Eros1982

If we can, how about the property of 'novel / nested symmetries'?

Should philosophers and simple humans give up the idea that beauty and ugliness may result from certain features and/or properties?

I think "certain features and/or properties" (e.g. symmetries) make it easier – less costly in calories for a CNS – to have an aesthetic response – and get a reward system spike! – from attention to those "features and/or properies". Imagine a (i.e. your favorite) sonnet, natural vista, woman's walk, man's hands, musical composition, logical argument / mathematical proof.

Perhaps, but good luck trying to identify just what they are. — Janus

I thought the same. But I think that the OP doesn't want to identify them at all, just remark on how some groups use them in bad faith. He used the example of politicians or government agencies that "overrated" some artworks instead of valuing aesthetics.

The issue it's little complicated. I have come to believe that there must be properties in beauty. There are some Roman and Greek Poets who are taught in school and do not please me at all, but I am still pleased by Catullus and Sophocles, though they wrote more than twenty centuries ago.

On the other hand you see there's a difference in quality/appreciation of arts. All nations have some kind of music and painting. You can see also that many animals enjoy music (snakes, parrots, etc.). But then you have theater, movies, opera, and some other stuff, that most of nations either do not have an appreciation at all or are unable to contribute with any worth-standing pieces. It is impossible, at the same time, to persuade some people in developed countries that theater, opera and cinema are less universal/pleasing than painting and music and that's the reason why some civilizations never came to contribute in theater, opera and cinema.

To conclude, I probably tend to believe that there are real properties in Aesthetics, but at the same time I tend to believe that society can construct/alienate people's intelligence and tastes somehow. Other answers I don't find with regard to the question "why in all arts and sciences there is a "golden era" (and then lots of dark age)?".

You are right in the fact that the issue is a bit complicated.

What I see is that everything that aesthetics involves depends on the progress of societies or civilizations, and aesthetics have always been a part of social representation. You mentioned Roman and Greek poets, but sculptors and painters are important too. If we see a Greek sculpture such as The Discobolus and a Italian Renaissance painting such as da Vinci's Virgin of the Rocks, we would appreciate that the concept of aesthetic has fluctuated during the centuries.

What is the big deal about aesthetics in modern times? Well, I personally think that society has lost a basic concept about art, literature, theatre, opera, music, etc... Everything has turned commercial and industrial. Only a few seem to still care about "real" art, the one that is sublime and intriguing. I guess, as an example, we can mention Banksy.

I thought the same. But I think that the OP doesn't want to identify them at all, just remark on how some groups use them in bad faith. He used the example of politicians or government agencies that "overrated" some artworks instead of valuing aesthetics. — javi2541997

The government agencies might just be proposing a different aesthetic. It brings up the question as to just what aesthetics deals with. The simple, perhaps naive, answer would be "beauty". But the idea of aesthetics is tied to the idea of non-ethical value judgement and the question is what exactly are we valuing if not beauty? Could it be aliveness or relevance to living experience? Not all artworks are beautiful in any straightforward sense; some that are considered great may even be grotesque.

Not all artworks are beautiful in any straightforward sense; some that are considered great may even be grotesque. — Janus

And in-between (thinking of Guernica here, one of my favorite paintings)

the idea of aesthetics is tied to the idea of non-ethical value judgement and the question is what exactly are we valuing if not beauty? — Janus

Sounds about right to me. Or, upon accepting the beautiful (or the sublime), explaining why they are appealing, or what they are, or how to judge them, or which artworks are beautiful/sublime. (contra those categories, I think "the comedic" might work)

Health.

:up:

Not all artworks are beautiful in any straightforward sense; some that are considered great may even be grotesque. — Janus

And in-between (thinking of Guernica here, one of my favorite paintings) — Moliere

:up:

Can we agree on properties that give beauty or harmony in objects, humans, artworks and phenomena? — Eros1982

To a considerable extent we do agree; and to a considerable extent we disagree. But any consideration of what properties are shared by beautiful things is like music theory, it comes after the event. First we make the sounds we like, and then we work out theories of harmony etc.

Furthermore, some things become fashionable, and go out of fashion, but other things do not. There are generational sensibilities and concerns, and evergreen classics. All this is annoying for philosophers who like things tidy and consistent.

It's good to have a @Moliere in this forum, so I can talk about plays :)

There may be great plays, boring plays, but there are many texts playwrights will tell you: sorry fella, go try your hand in novels and scripts, cause this piece can be anything but a play.

If you don't have puzzles, character development and a motive, you definitely do not have a play. I can say, for example, that Jean Racine is a poor playwright (for my taste), but he has all those three features in his works, and I do not deny that he writes plays. But for some works of Eugene Ionesco, I doubt whether those should be called plays, as I might say also that Ibsen's Peer Gynt comes closer to novels and movie scripts, than to plays.

Hence, I do think in arts there must be some kind of standard/criteria on what consists of an artwork (poem, novel, song, etc.). But then I see in the USA a few activists (of social justice) called as the greatest contemporary poets, though what I read in them do not look like poetry to me (in form and expression).

In short, there is some kind of development and individual trait in all arts. But I think some people are trying to make us believe that everything in arts should be subjective, though to the best of my knowledge that statement is wrong. Plays, as I said, should have certain features in order to not become scripts, novels or something else.

Hence, I do think in arts there must be some kind of standard/criteria on what consists of an artwork (poem, novel, song, etc.) — Eros1982

I am saying that there are those standards, and we know what they are from looking at the best. but every now and not too often, a playwright will break the rules and set a new standard and paradigm - and the standard changes. If you judged Waiting for Godot or Under Milk Wood by the standards of conventional theatre of the day, you would not look at either of them twice. We understand classical painting, but you cannot use that understanding to look at a Rothko. But when you start to appreciate Rothko, you develop a new standard.

In other words the work has priority, and the standard is just the current theory and standard - a post hoc justification and teaching aid.

But when you start to appreciate Rothko, you develop a new standard.

In other words the work has priority, and the standard is just the current theory and standard - a post hoc justification and teaching aid. — unenlightened

I don't have a strict opinion on these things. But I have reasons to disagree here. I might rather say that for all artistic genres there are still possibilities that wait to be discovered, not that we are waiting for idols who will make new standards for everyone.

From the moment you invent a camera, let's say, there are certain things you can do with it. Most of the directors think that with a camera you can take to the big screen great performances and great actors, but then you have Victor Fleming who thinks that with a camera you can do those things but you can also add more pleasure (in Fleming's hands a camera starts to act on its own).

Now I can't say that Victor Fleming created the new film or that cameras in other directors' hands did not add pleasure to a movie. What I can say is that Fleming was such a genius who has a clear idea on how to use a camera. Other directors before him could convey a lot of pleasure to spectators, but they were not very clear in the way they used a camera. Now, all directors know the possibilities a camera brings to production, but that is not because Fleming did that, it is because cameras do have these possibilities (if Fleming were not the first to know, then most probably Sergio Leone would be the first :) and after 90 years what Fleming what the first to do has become like a common/public knowledge.

If I adopted your view, then I should lack any arguments against Yoko Ono if she tells me that a time (maybe after 200 years) will come when everyone will understand that she was the greatest poet and painter in UK of the 21st century :)

I am not an expert in painting, to tell you my opinion on Rothko. But Beckett is a great playwright, and Waiting for Godot has all the elements I mentioned in my previous post.

Motive: (Nietzschean) Vanity
Puzzles: what is Godot bringing to them? Why Estragon and Pozzo forget things all the time? Why did Lucky become slavish and dull?
Character development: In the second act all protagonists look different (Estragon has forgotten many things, Pozzo looks old and tired, etc.)

I should lack any arguments against Yoko Ono if she tells me that a time (maybe after 200 years) will come when everyone will understand that she was the greatest poet and painter in UK of the 21st century :) — Eros1982

It happened to Van Gogh.
I don't think it'll happen to Yoko, but I don't have an argument, only a judgement.

It's good to have a Moliere in this forum, so I can talk about plays :) — Eros1982

Hell yeah!

That was the original reason I joined the forum way back when: I was excited to see an aesthetics section, and was really turned onto theatre at the time. (as it turns out, I've stuck around for other reasons -- but I'm a theatre lover!)

If you don't have puzzles, character development and a motive, you definitely do not have a play. I can say, for example, that Jean Racine is a poor playwright (for my taste), but he has all those three features in his works, and I do not deny that he writes plays. But for some works of Eugene Ionesco, I doubt whether those should be called plays, as I might say also that Ibsen's Peer Gynt comes closer to novels and movie scripts, than to plays. — Eros1982

Heh. I love Ionesco. It's definitely a play. And Ibsen is the basis for all modern theatre! So it sounds like you must like Shakespeare? Or what?

How do you feel about Stanislavski? Or are you strictly one who reads/watches plays?

I might be more a fan of Chekhov than of Shakespeare. Chekhov is far from perfect, but I love his naturalism. Whenever I finish writing my second play, I might read Stanislavski as well (and Moliere's Misanthrope). I don't know anything about Stanislavski (I just have heard his name).

I like Ibsen a lot. I simply don't know what he got in his mind when he wrote Peer Gynt (he probably knew cinema and opera would take over theater :) I used Peer Gynt like a famous example of the limits in plays. I didn't mean anything bad about Ibsen. The Enemy of the People and Hedda Gabler are masterpieces by all standards (whereas I found A Doll's House to be too forced, because Nora waits till the end of the play to wake up and I don't like that at all.... though I totally agree with the message of Ibsen).

I had a book with four plays of Ionesco. There was a nice comedy in, but I gave up reading the rest. I thought I was wasting my time (I was 35.000 feet above the sea when I was reading Ionesco, and that might have been a reason he didn't impress me, though I found him funny). You can say also that comedies differ from other plays in their form and features. There is also some difference between seeing and reading a play.


Though Sophocles, Euripides, Shakespeare, De La Barca, Ibsen, Chekhov, Shaw, Pirandello, Beckett, and Miller (to mention a few) wrote in different times/perspectives, I do find motives, puzzles and character developments in most of their plays. If I don't find these three elements in plays, then some funny stuff is taking place or I don't see play at all.