The idea of the aesthetic developed from the idea of taste and beauty. Before the early 1700s, thinkers developed general theories of proportion and harmony, detailed most specifically in architecture and music. An extended, philosophical reflection on aesthetics emerged with the widening of leisure activities in the eighteenth century.[2]
In the 1700s, Edmund Burke and David Hume tried to explain aesthetic concepts such as beauty with empirical evidence, by connecting them with typical individuals' responses. They sought a basis for an objectivity of personal reactions.[3]
In the 1800s psychologist Wilhelm Wundt showed that interest is generally related to complexity of stimulus. To arouse interest an object should be neither boringly simple nor overly complex; thus complexity could be an objective measure. It is now known, for instance, that judgments of facial beauty in humans are a matter of averageness and symmetry.[2]
The analysis of individual experience and behavior based on experiment is a central part of experimental aesthetics, a field founded by Gustav Theodor Fechner in the 1800s.
Immanuel Kant insisted that aesthetic concepts are essentially subjective, but have some objectivity since feelings of pleasure and pain can be universal responses to certain stimuli.
Recently theorists have been interested in ways that aesthetic concepts are constructed out of social mores and practices. Evaluations of beauty may well be linked to desirability, economic, political, or moral value. One might judge a Lamborghini to be beautiful partly because it is desirable as a status symbol, or we might judge it to be repulsive partly because it signifies for us over-consumption and offends our political or moral values.[4]
As late as 1912 it was normal in the West to assume that all art aims at beauty, and thus that anything that wasn't trying to be beautiful couldn't count as art. The cubists, dadaists, Stravinsky, and many later art movements struggled against this conception that beauty was central to the definition of art, with such success that, according to Danto, "Beauty had disappeared not only from the advanced art of the 1960s but from the advanced philosophy of art of that decade as well."
In the 1930s, Walter Benjamin, in his essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, argued that, in the absence of any traditional, ritualistic value, art in the age of mechanical reproduction would inherently be based on the practice of politics. John Berger continued in this direction with Ways of Seeing, in which he criticizes traditional Western cultural aesthetics by raising questions about hidden ideologies in visual images.
In 1946, William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley published the essay The Intentional Fallacy, in which they argued strongly against the relevance of an author's intention, or "intended meaning" in the analysis of a literary work. For Wimsatt and Beardsley, the words on the page were all that mattered; importation of meanings from outside the text was considered irrelevant, and potentially distracting. In another essay, "The Affective Fallacy," which served as a kind of sister essay to "The Intentional Fallacy", Wimsatt and Beardsley also discounted the reader's personal/emotional reaction to a literary work as a valid means of analyzing a text. This fallacy would later be repudiated by theorists from the reader-response school of literary theory. Ironically, one of the leading theorists from this school, Stanley Fish, was himself trained by New Critics. Fish criticizes Wimsatt and Beardsley in his essay "Literature in the Reader" (1970).[5]
In 1959 Frank Sibley wrote that aesthetic concepts were not rule- or condition-governed, but required a heightened form of perception, which one might call taste, sensitivity, or judgment.
ความคิดของความงามได้พัฒนาจากความคิดของรสชาติและความสวยงาม ก่อนช่วงต้นศตวรรษที่ 18 นักคิดพัฒนาทฤษฎีทั่วไปของสัดส่วน และความสามัคคี สถาปัตยกรรมมากที่สุดโดยเฉพาะในรายละเอียด และเพลง สะท้อนการขยาย ปรัชญาสุนทรียศาสตร์ที่เกิดกับการขยับขยายของกิจกรรมในศตวรรษที่สิบแปด [2]ในศตวรรษที่ 18 วิลล์สวางและเดวิดฮูมพยายามอธิบายแนวคิดความงามเช่นความงามกับหลักฐานเชิงประจักษ์ โดยเชื่อมต่อกันด้วยการตอบสนองของบุคคลทั่วไป พวกเขาขอพื้นฐานสำหรับเป็นปรวิสัยปฏิกิริยาส่วนบุคคล [3]ในศตวรรษที่ 19 นักจิตวิทยา Wilhelm Wundt พบว่า ดอกเบี้ยโดยทั่วไปที่เกี่ยวข้องกับความซับซ้อนของการกระตุ้นเศรษฐกิจ กระตุ้นความสนใจ วัตถุควรจะ boringly อย่างง่าย ไม่ ซับซ้อนเกินไป ดังนั้น ความซับซ้อนอาจเป็นการวัดวัตถุประสงค์ มันเป็นที่รู้จัก เช่น ตัดสินความงามหน้าในมนุษย์เป็นเรื่องของ averageness และสมมาตรกัน [2]การวิเคราะห์ประสบการณ์และลักษณะการทำงานตามการทดลองเป็นส่วนกลางของสุนทรียศาสตร์ทดลอง เขตจัดตั้งขึ้นในปี 1800 โดย Fechner เที่ยวกุสตาฟจิตวิทยายืนยันที่ แนวคิดความงามอัตนัยเป็นหลัก แต่มีความเป็นกลางบางตั้งแต่ความรู้สึกของความสุข และความเจ็บปวดสามารถการตอบสนองสิ่งเร้าบางอย่างสากลRecently theorists have been interested in ways that aesthetic concepts are constructed out of social mores and practices. Evaluations of beauty may well be linked to desirability, economic, political, or moral value. One might judge a Lamborghini to be beautiful partly because it is desirable as a status symbol, or we might judge it to be repulsive partly because it signifies for us over-consumption and offends our political or moral values.[4]As late as 1912 it was normal in the West to assume that all art aims at beauty, and thus that anything that wasn't trying to be beautiful couldn't count as art. The cubists, dadaists, Stravinsky, and many later art movements struggled against this conception that beauty was central to the definition of art, with such success that, according to Danto, "Beauty had disappeared not only from the advanced art of the 1960s but from the advanced philosophy of art of that decade as well."In the 1930s, Walter Benjamin, in his essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, argued that, in the absence of any traditional, ritualistic value, art in the age of mechanical reproduction would inherently be based on the practice of politics. John Berger continued in this direction with Ways of Seeing, in which he criticizes traditional Western cultural aesthetics by raising questions about hidden ideologies in visual images.In 1946, William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley published the essay The Intentional Fallacy, in which they argued strongly against the relevance of an author's intention, or "intended meaning" in the analysis of a literary work. For Wimsatt and Beardsley, the words on the page were all that mattered; importation of meanings from outside the text was considered irrelevant, and potentially distracting. In another essay, "The Affective Fallacy," which served as a kind of sister essay to "The Intentional Fallacy", Wimsatt and Beardsley also discounted the reader's personal/emotional reaction to a literary work as a valid means of analyzing a text. This fallacy would later be repudiated by theorists from the reader-response school of literary theory. Ironically, one of the leading theorists from this school, Stanley Fish, was himself trained by New Critics. Fish criticizes Wimsatt and Beardsley in his essay "Literature in the Reader" (1970).[5]In 1959 Frank Sibley wrote that aesthetic concepts were not rule- or condition-governed, but required a heightened form of perception, which one might call taste, sensitivity, or judgment.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
