/lit/ - Literature

>>5398701
go for it
philosofag here and i just finished a course on aesthetics and i enjoyed it.

so here's the bare bones of it.
>Hedonism: the value of art is enjoying it (whatever that means)
>Expressivism: art is about expressing emotion
>Cognitivism: art is about conveying knowledge

I tend toward cognitivism because i am a virtue ethicist

>>5398971

Unless the only knowledge worth conveying is that one should enjoy themselves.

>>5398982
except that every form of artistic expression is a statement on what humanity should or should not value

miserable aesthete

>>5398982
>>5399000
anyway OP aesthetics is obviously fun as hell

it's kind of awkward that in our patriarchal society the pose of that man is considered as improper for a man

>>5398971
Are they mutually exclusive?
Why not all three?

>>5399020
they certainly do not exclude each other. a work of art may produce emotion and enjoyment while also teaching one about something. the question is instead what is the PRIMARY purpose of a work. certainly one might encounter a work one doesn't enjoy while still recognizing its artistic merit.

e.g. does a work "fail" if it JUST induces feeling? does a work fail if you do not enjoy it? to what extent does an artist's intention matter? what if a work has nothing to "say" except "hey, look at this!" (e.g. kenneth noland). etc.

>>5399000
I woould probably be starting with Firino and the catholic interpretations of art as imitation of the divine creation and the later idea of something that which is good.
Thanks, I hope we get at least one good thread our of it.

>>5399010
Did you ,mean this for a thread where girls complained about "writing like a man" o am I missing the connection?

>>5399020
They becoming exclusive when you delve into the justifications behind each one and how it connects with the general philosophical areas. BU as readers we are free to chose our own meaning mixing and patching together.

>>5398971
>philosofag
>i am a virtue ethicist
maximumkek
undergraduates theses days are absolutely retarded.

>>5399010

I looked at this man's pose after reading your post and I thought "what a lady". And then I realized that I am sitting the exact same way right now.

>>5399010
oh, POSE, I read prose.
I guess it's a position that doesn't allow you to quickly respond or even move at all after a while. We've grown to think that lack of potential violence is feminine, but I don't know if seeing it in real life anyone would be too bothered. Doesn't look too confy.

>>5399979
Well, maybe you are a MtF transexual, sorry mate. I mean, gal.

>>5399999
>Well, maybe you are a MtF transexual, sorry mate. I mean, gal.

You must be right look at those quints!

>>5400074
Am I supposed to thank you or ask you to check your numeral privilege or something?

night bumpo

>>5398701

start an irc channel

>>5402104
I saw you guys doing that irc thing with some pre decided literature, I'd prefer a thread were anyone can come and go as they please. I feel it would be something that could make the discussion more varied and get more people into the subject.
How did that irc thing go? I saw in the thread that you were 3 hours debating, that sounds great.

>>5402236

i'd also prefer a thread, but somewhere where it won't expire, like it does on 4chan.

don't know about last week, but last year there were some great discussions on irc. looking forward to more of the same

>>5402263
We can just keep making threads and keep on trekking. I was thinking about having one of those pages that are like a notepad and keep there interesting posts from previous threads. I've seen generals keep some sort of backlog.

>>5402294

sound good, when do we start?

>>5402236
It felt like a looser than usual discussion section. I got some clarity out of it.

(Timofey here btw.)

Don't think in terms of 'objective art'. The question is 'does this event/object reside within the inter-subjective 'hurrah this is art'/'boo this isn't art' framework?

>>5402327
I'd like to have some stuff read before starting so the thread can go somewhere without depending on some anon to bring content. But considering how slow threads are here you can check the day after tomorrow and you'll find it with a few posts in it even if I were to make it right now..

>>5402337
That sounds great. Even in college people tend to shy away from talking out of fear of showing how little they know. It's hard to learn new things if you won't accept not knowing them.

>>5402339
I think we could first go all the way to the greek distinction between objects that are useful and objects that make you feel good, and the how the terms evolved. Etymological analysis makes everything feel hegel-y and that's a good thing.
Again, I'd like to be a little bit better read before really starting. But any particular topics you are interested we can check to have a little groundwork before getting out hands dirty.

I have to go right now, but I'll check the thread at unholy hours.

>>5402375
>distinction between objects that are useful and objects that make you feel good
Taking a perspective that includes propositional attitudes sort of renders this obsolete, as 'useful objects' may give us mental pleasure.

Also, my account above includes a linguistic perspective. Insofar as we have different linguistic frameworks, we will have different boo/hurrah art frameworks that reside within them. That's why the inter-subjectivity of the terms takes into account the common linguistic understanding.

>>5402375

let's just hope we'll be on at the same time. i'd hate to see the thread 404 before i read it....

>>5399010

It looks like he's checking to see if he has BO or any spots from the sunlight.

I guess you could say he...

...adorned the odor of a frank, furtive marks analyst.

>>5402389
I'm not entirely sure then if I'm getting your point. To a certain extent the mass interpretation of a work as art or pseudo art will have some effect but a lesser one since public opinion is a moveable subject. That's one of the reasons I'm personally so open to, maybe not an objective set of rules, but yes to a general accepted criteria (the same way science will have a dominant theory about a subject even if it hasn't been fully made law for lack of testing). I haven't really gone beyond skimming the works so far and I'm always open for an anon to show me the wrongs of my ways. It's probable that I'm not completely getting your point.

>>5402431
We can always make another and another and another. People will be happy to have an art containment thread anyway. The important part is having the right anons, as long as they retain their knowledge they can repeat and re formulate their ideas as many times as they want.

>>5402499
I'm gonna rename that pic "Adorno checking his smell"

>>5403332
What you've objected takes into account the interlinguistic and intersubjective interpretations that I discussed, but you've just moved it from a small dynamic to a larger

>>5403380
I really want to follow your posts but it took me more than I could focus at. I'm having some trouble but here's what I have:
I think that the intersubjective can't really be settled because subjectivity is too free (Your day to day life will affect you and you will change each day a little bit, just like masses are affected by propaganda, etc), but we can find a set of criteria through logic and common interpretation that will allows us to generalize to a good extent even though that criteria will change in the future as it has changed before.
I still find more interest in seeing how that criteria has evolved than in the particular points. I feel we can learn way more about art from how we've seen it than from pure lingüistics.
I'll re check in the morning to see if I make sense.

All you need to know about aesthetics is in the writings of:

Kant
Nietzsche
Plato
Hegel
Schopenhauer
Heidegger
Adorno
Deleuze

>>5403851
Not really. But those are a varied assortment of useful thinkers.

>>5403860
Who else would you include

>>5403862
Well, a lot of them I would take out in an "esential aesthetics lists". Plato didn't bother too much with art and his conection comes only through Ficino, who has barely historical value. Hume dedicated way more time to the subject, maybe you were leaving him into Kant. Frankfurt represented by Adorno without Benjamin is a bit insulting as a filmfag since he was pretty much against any instance of film as art and we just needed a bit more time.
And then you have to remember that there's more to the world than Europe (I know, I know) so I would add Hans Georg Gadamer and someone else to touch upon modern center-periferic and absolute-example relationship that is institutionalized.
Biut that's just the top of my head. I'm not even 100% sure about this.

>>5403873
>and the
you know where that goes

>>5398971
I call my own way of life "reflective" hedonism. Art is a quite central expression of that.

>>5404130
>I call my own way of life "reflective" hedonism.

Could any guys who took philosophy of aesthetics surveys post their syllabi?

I've always wanted to read through a skeletal framework of the major works on the topic so I can start fleshing it out on my own

>>5404156

second that

>>5404130
ebalorate

>>5404130
>I call my own way of life "reflective" hedonism
lmao

>>5404156
>>5404709
I should go reprint it today but it has tons of authors referencing other authors and local stuff to circlejerk some. If we make this a thing, as we go more respectable authors will come out of the texts to be checked.