The field of aesthetics is primarily concerned with qualitative and sometimes seemingly subjective judgements of sensory and emotional information. 'Red' is something that can be measured with scientific instruments. 'Pretty' on the other hand, cannot. This is one of the goals of aestetics... to figure out what the heck that is.
But of course you need something to talk ABOUT. So aesthetics usually gets tied up with art pretty closely. Art gives those philosophers something to talk about that they can all see and be familiar with. It's an objective crux that permits the subjective judgements to be compared.
So when we compare classic and modern aesthetic philosophies, we are going to end up comparing classic and modern ART as well, because classic philsophers made their judgements based on classic art, but modern ones have additional pieces to add to their vocabulary. All right... now down to work:
Greek art was among the most popular in the ancient world, and it venerated both the unadorned human form and the skills of a master of using it. Many Greek philosophers thought that beauty was an intrinsic property common to natural objects and life. Plato and Aristotle suggested that important qualities to have for an aethetically pleasing object were unity, symmetry, harmony, and so on.
Subsequent art has not been quite so attached to the ideas of unity, symmetry, and harmony. Some modern philsophers add a half-dozen other things that are conducive to aesthetics, including variety, intricacy, magnitude, and others. Some suggest that it defies analytic study altogether and is an intuitive sense that is developed in the viewer, much like (or identical to) the moral sense. Modern and post-modern art is certainly intricate and varied... many artists in the 20th century even began to revolt against the idea that art SHOULD be beautiful and pleasing, and began to produce works with altogether different effects.
Hope that helps!
2006-08-15 09:17:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by Doctor Why 7
·
0⤊
0⤋