Originally it was applied to the study of beauty, and to me that would have to include ugly, and gradations in between the two extremes. all personal with each individual. The word aesthetics may not be correct or understood be non artists , but it's a good stand in. Waking out of a bad dream would also be understood as "stand in" by poets. Why limit a great word like "aesthetics" to plain art? ab On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:59 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> William writes: > > >> The whole point of seeking a definition of the aesthetic is to >> distinguish it >> from the non-aesthetic. If, as claimed below, there is no distinction >> between >> the aesthetic and any other 'sudden' feeling then we don't have a >> definition. >> If it can't be falsified, as the scientists like to say, it can't be >> claimed >> as a defintion or theory. I would suppose that the sensation of being >> shot is >> not an aesthetic one. When I stub my toe on the damned table it is not an >> aesthetic feeling. In history, the aesthetic has always been associated >> with >> a sensation of euphoria or a sense of helpless dread or awe, as is >> typically >> associated with the sublime. >> >> I'm with William on his core point here. (In my last email I should not > have said it WAS an a.e.. I'm allowed to say only that it FELT to me like what > I tend to CALL an a.e.. > > Underlying that remark is my conviction that an a.e. feels as generically > different from other types of experience as, say, a taste-experience feels > different from an auditory experience. I agree that's not a totally > satisfactory "explanation", but that incomplete understanding of "aesthetic > experience" is why I've urged the forum examine the stuff.
