geocanuck

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by geocanuck 6y ago

   >which may be why your quotes are so old Does their age determine their validity? >However I believe since the modernist movement the ideal has shifted to be more about eliciting an emotional reaction That does not mean that what they
2. 2.▲
   by geocanuck 6y ago

   Thanks for the kind response. I would say that variance in taste or popularity does not imply beauty at all. Something can be popular but not beautiful. Just because something is popular does not make it beautiful. People liking lots of dif
3. 3.▲
   by geocanuck 6y ago

   I wouldn't say that I agree. I don't think a delusion of any sort is produced. If something is beautiful (which is objective), saying "it is ugly" does not make you ignorant so much as it makes you simply incorrect. Call
4. 4.▲
   by geocanuck 6y ago

   Not quite what I'm saying. Beauty and goodness (being fundamentally identical) are attributes of objective reality. Subjectivity is the confusion of our limitations for the eternal truths of the universe. I hope this makes my position
5. 5.▲
   by geocanuck 6y ago

   To your first point, would you argue art is not the field of human interest with beauty as its ideal? Would you argue art strives for ugliness? Art holds ugliness and "badness" as its ideal? I find that to be a very untenable posi
6. 6.▲
   by geocanuck 6y ago

   I disagree. Beauty is a transcendental attribute of being. As such, it is not contingent upon cultural diversity, religious doctrine, or personal ideology, but is an objective property of all that exists.
7. 7.▲
   by geocanuck 6y ago

   philosophically, aesthetics is the study concerning the nature of beauty and taste. art is the field of human interest with beauty as its transcendental ideal. ugly art cannot be good art as beauty is what is good. metaphor, meaning, contex
8. 8.▲
   by geocanuck 6y ago

   Sure. I replied to another comment with a longer explanation of the definition of beauty, i suggest you check it out and give me your thoughts. to be brief, beauty is a transcendental. thus, it exists independently of the individual, and fu
9. 9.▲
   by geocanuck 6y ago

   i was going for an explanation of how art and aesthetics are not purely subjective. and how one could arrive at the statement "semi-objective ranking". so im not arguing "Sgt. Pepper is beautiful" im arguing "there
10. 10.▲
    by geocanuck 6y ago

    the objective criteria is beauty/ugliness. there is partial subjectivity in determination of "rank" past this distinction. hence "semi-objective"
11. 11.▲
    by geocanuck 6y ago

    beauty has levels of objectivity. there is partial subjectivity in aesthetic judgement. hence "somewhat objective"
12. 12.▲
    by geocanuck 6y ago

    there does exist partial subjectivity in judging the aesthetics or beauty of art, but are not fully subjective in aesthetic judgment. beauty has levels of objectivity. as such, "good" or "beautiful" art exists, and &quot
13. 13.▲
    by geocanuck 7y ago

    You can get small raspberry pi based seismographs from https://raspberryshake.org/ ... could be interesting to integrate it with a small alarms or web/mobile apps that go off when it detects p-wave/s-wave arrivals