I want some books that attempt to answer questions like - what is beauty? what is art? what is good art? etc
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
books on philosophy of art and aesthetics?
I want some books that attempt to answer questions like - what is beauty? what is art? what is good art? etc
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Hegel's Lectures on Aesthetics
All terrible examples. German philosophy about aesthetics is not useful, which is why you don't see any worthwhile art critic using them to critique art. Plato is far more useful and has far more influence.
I have seen some compelling arguments Hegel was the inventor of art history as we now know it.
I read it and found it underwhelming
Theres also:
Sartre - Essays On Aesthetics
Gasset - Dehumanization Of Art
Croce - Aesthetic As Science
Collingwood - Principles Of Art
Tolstoy - What Is Art?
After that you can go into architectural theory by Sitte, Le Corbusier and Vitrivius
>Le Corbusier and Vitrivius
Good
- Essays On Aesthetics
>Gasset - Dehumanization Of Art
>Croce - Aesthetic As Science
>Collingwood - Principles Of Art
>Tolstoy - What Is Art?
Shit.
its worth reading anyways, but you wouldn't know anything about that.
There are also others such as
On the aesthetic education of man - Schiller
A philosophical inquiry - Burke
>double >>ing
Sun and Steel
has anyone read Eco's books on Beauty and Ugliness?
Read Maurice Denis, van Gogh, Courbet etc. Dont bother with whatever non-artists wrote about art because they dont know anything.
Philosophers have convincingly argued the opposite of this, that artists themselves typically have minimal understanding of what it is they're doing because they're so immersed in the intuitive and genius driven process of making art that they don't understand how or why they do what they do and so often have minor insight into the nature of art compared to those who specialize in being great at critique.
You can see this is stuff like how 'impressionists' would claim that they were painting "how the eye really perceives light" and nonsensical ideas like that.
>You can see this is stuff like how 'impressionists' would claim that they were painting "how the eye really perceives light" and nonsensical ideas like that.
Yes but the only real evidence you need is to see how stupid artists are when talking about anything including art. They're not creative writers, who tend to understand the world far better.
MUTILATED NOSE.
okay queer
>Good art, but not necessarily great art; the distinction between great art and good art depending immediately, as regards literature at all events, not on its form, but on the matter. Thackeray's Esmond, surely, is greater art than Vanity Fair, by the greater dignity of its interests. It is on the quality of the matter it informs or controls, its compass, its variety, its alliance to great ends, or the depth of the note of revolt, or the largeness of hope in it, that the greatness of literary art depends, as The Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, Les Misérables, The English Bible, are great art. Given the conditions I have tried to explain as constituting good art;—then, if it be devoted further to the increase of men's happiness, to the redemption of the oppressed, or the enlargement of our sympathies with each other, or to such presentment of new or old truth about ourselves and our relation to the world as may ennoble and fortify us in our sojourn here, or immediately, as with Dante, to the glory of God, it will be also great art; if, over and above those qualities I summed up as mind and soul—that colour and mystic perfume, and that reasonable structure, it has something of the soul of humanity in it, and finds its logical, its architectural place, in the great structure of human life.
-- Walter Pater, "Appreciates, with an Essay on Style"
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4037/4037-h/4037-h.htm
>not on its form, but on the matter.
What a stupid sentiment. It's dependent on both. Is one canto about glory from Dante better than War and Peace, just because Dante's matter is higher. Stupid, stupid thinking. Why read the rest of a hack like Pater?
> be devoted further to the increase of men's happiness, to the redemption of the oppressed
Garbage
Julian Young - Nietzsche’s philosophy of art
Roger scruton - beauty (he’s a normalgay but a knowledgeable one)
James david lewis-williams - the mind in the cave: consciousness and the origins of art
Kenneth Clark - the romantic rebellion
Camille paglia - glittering images
Aristotle - poetics
Carl Jung (and collaborators) - man and his symbols
>Julian Young - Nietzsche’s philosophy of art
>Kenneth Clark - the romantic rebellion
>Camille paglia - glittering images
>Carl Jung (and collaborators) - man and his symbols
Shit. Did you even read the Jung? What a disappointing load of garbage.
This photo has been heavily edited (the eyes have been enlarged and brightened, the alae of the nose made slightly smaller, the lips enlarged, and the skin blurred to remove imperfections). The reason she is posing that way is to conceal her unflattering facial shape. She wearing an excessive amount of makeup. Even with these desperate attempts to improve her appearance, she is mid. If this is OP's idea of "beauty", no book is ever going to help him.
>he eyes have been enlarged and brightened, the alae of the nose made slightly smaller, the lips enlarged, and the skin blurred to remove imperfections
You're wrong, see picrel. If there was more warping in those areas, there would be light blue and red noise different from her hand. The ISO level is also consistent for a shitty selfy. The picture is not edited but she is using heavy makeup and had a shitty nosejob. It could still be AI.
If she used this many methods to look 6/10 she is probably a 5/10.
post gf
Similar question: anybody have suggestions for books on theodicy through aesthetics? I know it's out there, but I don't know where to look.
>Religion and Art - Richard Wagner