Can we articulate what aesthetics is?

I am new to this forum and haven't posted any photos yet, but I thought my two cents might as well be added to the comments. I think aesthetics is a zen concept. It is totally personal and is based upon each individuals life experiences. To one a photo of an ant crawling across a sheet of paper might express the universe and to another it is just an ant crawling on a piece of paper. Aesthetics is a word like beauty, it cannot be defined by words it is solely in the eye of the beholder.

That's what you wrote to me. But unfortunately I was always bad at discussing these kind of questions.

 

Maybe Aesthetics is, when most of the people are giving your picture a "7" ? Well no, this is just democracy. But are Aesthetics always voiced out by a majority ? Hehehe just another forum discussion theme for you ;-) Thank you for submitting this (eternal and unanswerable) question. cheers, chris

Interesting Forum. I will be thinking about Aesthetics today in my next photoshoot. High aesthetic value means, having butterflies upon gazing at a revealed photograph. Somehow being moved by the captured moment.

 

Cheers,

Ringo

This is an extremely interesting thread to me. I've been very troubled in trying to rate photos here. I'm constantly debating whether to include my feelings about the subject into my feelings about the overall technical excellence of the image, or the composition, etc. For instance, I have an aversion to body tatoos, people smoking, gangs, pierced body parts, cluttered places, crude nudes, photos with elaborate frames around them, advertising, etc. If I were to rate such photos, I would rate them lower because they were not pleasant to me and they evoked negative feelings. So... one interpretation of aesthetics is something that we enjoy, or feel good about, or sense a personal beauty in viewing. I realize by the reaction of many members that this is not a unanimously held interpretation. I'm often told to just DON'T rate a photo if I don't like the subject.

 

I also understand that a strong negative emotion evoked by a piece of art is "good" in that it causes you to pause, ponder, think, etc about the subject or what the photographer has felt or is trying to convey. However, I still might find it repulsive or unpleasant and thus want to rate it low in aesthetics.

 

I find that most of the images rated high on photo.net tend to have these features (not in any order):

 

1) simple compositions, converging lines, symmetrical

2) contrast in color or shading

3) few or mainly one subject that causes the mind to focus on it quickly.

4) familiar scenes

5) open landscapes

6) mystery views (foggy, through leaves, roads leading to unknown areas, etc.)

7) sex related

 

I suspect I've left out a few, but generally, my overall sense of what beauty and aesthetics are from looking at the highly rated, most often rated, and viewed images are: simple, few contrasting colors of a single subject.

 

This thread proves to me that aesthetics, like art, has no RIGHT answer, but is something that each individual develops over his experiences in time. To me it is interesting to discuss because I want to learn how to make more images that match my own version of aesthetic beauty.

<b>Thank you every one, for pouring in your thoughts, this has given a solid outline to my research study, with out you peoples help I would have been no where.<br><br>

 

There is one more point if I take data and pictures from the site, will I be infringing the copy right laws. I will mention the name of the site and the name of the photographer in my research paper. And will also provide my research paper to pubic and PN. As this will be a noncommercial paper.<br><br>

 

Main reason to do this research is to find out the factors which can be beneficial for all of us Photographers<br><br>

 

I have inquired this with PN officials but have not received any reply.<br><br>

 

Please keep on posting about Aesthetics. And expend our understanding. I will also like to know the email address of participators so I can send them the final copy of the paper.<br><br>

 

Once again thank you<br><br>

 

I love you all

</b>

Aesthetics is highly subjective but here are the things I look for in a photograph:

 

What is the subject of the photograph and is it clear what the subject of the photograph is suppose to be? What is my eye immediately drawn to?

 

Are there things in the photo that distract from the subject?

 

Then I will look at the lighting and decide if I think it works for this photo.

 

I will look for any framing devices or leading lines.

 

Sometimes I will squint at the photo to see it more as shapes, forms and colors.

 

Is the subject in focus?

 

Does the depth of field help or hurt the image?

 

Are there things that could have been left out that don't necessarily distract from the subject.

 

Do I have an emotional response to the image? What is it?

 

And last but not least, do I wish that I had been able to make the photo?

 

I don't know if this explains what aesthetics is, but the more of these that a photo has, more likely it is to get a 7 rating from me.

Aesthetics or beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and are therefore very

personal and subjective. One man's meat is another man's poison. If more

than 50% of people think or say it's beautiful, than it must be beautiful. You

cannot take any one person's personal opinion at face value, as he or she

may not have the same taste as you or the masses. When we rate an image,

our own individual preferences and taste comes into play, but if more people

give you a 6 and fewer people give you a 4, your image can be considered

having good aesthetics or beauty. It's really a consensus thing when it comes

to judging an image.

no, i cannot. we've learned this definition in school> nice is what you like without interest. but i don't agree with this. it's also true that you can find something aesthetic in this very second but then feel digusted by it the next day. (or just the opposite). anyways, i heard a better thing once from one good friend, "this might be a perfect picture for you because it evokes uneraseably beautiful memories or feelings." and that's what counts.

My answer for local purposes is ... rhythm.

<p>

But if you're doing a research paper, you know where you should be spending your time ... and it's not here.

<p>

:)

Hi Roome

Thanx for inviting me to participate in the forum, its great to be part of photgraphers community here...

 

To me aesthtics are in one's nature... even every one is aesthetically designed in every respect... its just a matter of knowing the word...even a begger does his job with some kind of aesthetics... which makes him earn...

 

it is some kind of pattern which makes us appeal and attract to a particular subject matter...

 

if i take example of the same photograph on which u invited me..... when i took the shot it was a simple one... as i reprinted it after couple of years my negatives were washed a bit and actually i thought my negatives are wasted but after reprintng them on differnt papers they actually turned out to be more interesting to me atleast... u may have a look on couple of more images..infact u might have... they are "on the graveyard wall" and nature against fabrication". its actually funny and interesting to know what others think the subject is... and well its being said on the basis of their own aesthetic sense...

 

Thanx again and GOODLUCK 4 ur paper! u can mail me at zainul@myself.com

 

Regards

Zain

Many members agree, that what is aesthetic is something that gives you a feeling. Regarding to the query, landscapes are aesthetic too. Both are right.

Kant proposes a differentiation in his "Critique of Judgement", which deals with aesthetics as a philosophical discipline. Kant distinguishes between what is beautiful and what is sublime. I believe this distinction fits very well the discussion.

According to Kant, beauty is something that could be agreed on, a painting can be beautiful to every group in which the notion of beauty is shared (landscapes in western society, for example). On the other side, what is sublime, is something that differs from individual to individual. I must stress that sublime is not beauty on second power but is something that touches the viewer's senses and encompass him or her with a mixture of feelings, which are not only positive ones. Kant uses as an example the eruption of a volcano, which is an experience of such a beauty and in the same time of great horror (things are much more complex, but i'm not going to resume all of his writing here).

To sum up, both the notions of beauty and sublimeness are part of aesthetics, but on different levels. You can regard pleasing images as beautiful and thus rate them as highly aesthetic (if we are talking about the PN system); in the same time you can rate a shocking image, which is not pleasing, as highly aesthetic too. But this all applies to this Kantian differentiation. I myself rate pictures which have an added value as highly aesthetic, pictures, which would classify as sublime. The ordinary, beautiful, photos don't get more than 5.

Estetics should be based on some kind of harmony that is revealed by our senses. Since our senses are made differently by genetic makeup (I think that cultural differences are being slowly washed out), the final outcome may slightly diverge.

In philosophy, aesthetics is the study of beauty and taste, whether in the form of the comic, the tragic or the sublime. The word derives from the Greek aisthetikos, which means "of sense perception." Aesthetics has traditionally been part of other philosophical pursuits like the investigation of epistemology or ethics. However, it started to come into its own and become a more independent pursuit under Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher who saw aesthetics as a unitary and self-sufficient type of human experience. <br><br>

 

Unfortunately, aesthetics is one of those concepts which is not easily broken down into simpler ideas, thus making it rather difficult to explain adequately. In general, when we speak of something that creates an aesthetic experience, we are usually talking about some form of art; yet the mere fact that we are discussing a work of art does not guarantee that we are also discussing aesthetics - the two topics are not equivalent. For one thing, not all works of art necessarily create an aesthetic experience. An example of this occurs when we look at a painting in an effort to determine how much we can sell it for - here, we are not viewing it aesthetically. <br><br>

 

Whatever the actual object in question, those studying aesthetics seek to understand why some things arouse positive reactions whereas others arouse more negative feelings. Why are we drawn to certain objects and repelled by others? The very question of how and why aesthetic experiences are created is itself also a subject of aesthetics. In this manner, the field of aesthetics begins to cross over into the Philosophy of Mind because it touches on how and why aspects of our brain and consciousness operate. <br><br>

 

Aesthetics also leads us to a variety of other issues regarding politics, morality, and more. For example, some have argued that an important component of the aesthetic experience is the desire for political action - thus, "good" art is that which gets us to try and improve society. At the same time, some critics argue that there is "bad" art which serves to subtly (or sometimes not so subtly) reinforce the status quo and create an "ideology" which helps keep certain groups of people not only out of power, but even from seeking it in the first place. <br><br>

 

With regards to morality, it has often been argued that certain images or ideas are inherently immoral and hence do not create a valid aesthetic experience. Anything with a strong sexual content has often been included in such a category, but many political leaders have also included material which does not encourage people to follow the dictates of the state. <br><br>

 

Interestingly, the very answer to the question of whether or not some particular work of art should be permitted will often depend upon how one approaches it - from a political, ethical, religious or aesthetic perspective. In effect, our responses are in large part determined by how we frame the question in the first place, but that issue crosses over into the Philosophy of Language. <br><br>

 

 

 

The basic questions asked in aesthetics include: <br><br>

 

What can life be like? <br>

What is beautiful?<br>

Why do we find certain things beautiful? <br>

 

</b>

Does Aesthetics involves all of our senses? - vision, hearing, touch, taste, and smell - and emotions. <br><br>

 

like <br><br>

Colour<br>

Shape<br>

Pattern<br>

Line<br>

Texture<br>

Visual weight<br>

Balance<br>

Scale<br>

Movement<br>

Roome ... Richard was pointing you in the right direction with his suggestion of a dictionary, because that is the answer to the question anyone would expect you to pose ... what does 'aesthetics' mean? It's also the natural starting point for your questions.

<p>

You're asking if we can articulate it and if we understand it, and what you see above is the wide range of personal interpretations of the word. As several have implied, interpretations are down to 'who', 'where' and 'when'. Only you know how useful these responses might be for your paper as only you know the topic question you have been given.

<p>

However, unless your paper specifically concerns the reactions of a limited segment of 'interested' parties who are web-savvy, it may not get you very far. Including myself in this segment, some of us may be very interested, and some may be very interesting, but it's still only off-the-cuff opinions of how individuals use a word. (And speaking personally, it's not a word that I use <i>at all</i>.)

<p>

I'd suggest you need to begin with the variety of substantive definitions that you'd find in a range of dictionaries and specialist encyclopedias - and you will find that they differ. You would then be in a better position to interpret the above opinions in the context of prior research.

<p>

And that's off the top of my head ... in my previous comment I was implying that it's a library you need, but I can understand that you may not have many resources available other than the web. It doesn't change the principle of your approach though ... and I think you will only get something more concrete here if you state your topic.

Oops, last one out, close the</b> bold

<i>Thank you Sandeha Lynch, your comments were of great help, please feel free to send me more suggestion. peoples like you gives me the direction and light. </I>

<br><br><br>

<b>Thank you every one else, please keep on posting your valuable comments.</b>

Aesthethics is an individual view of a subject, design, situation, sound, scent, or many other possibilities. The old cliche' " I know it when I see it" is true for aesthethics , art, porn, beauty and many other subjects. Most of us just have a very hard time verbalizing our reasons for why we like or don't like something. Quite often I have to look at a photo many times to understand what makes me appreciate it. For me "subject" seems to be a very important factor in how I see aesthethics. I prefer to sort my viewing on photonet based more on originallity than aesthethics .

The person who started this thread, Roome Jee, has been banned from the site because he posted a link/advertisement for this thread in 290 photo comment threads.

Aesthetics is what the guy in authority thinks it is, at any given time and place. Truly, a debate about aesthetics can sometimes not really be aesthetic!

Aesthetics to me is what you as a person sees or you as an artist wants to convey to get the message, view or opinion across. What is aesthetically pleasing to one person might not be to another. In example the Mona Lisa. I hate that picture. I think she is boring in my eyes. And, yes I have seen it in person.

What John sees in his eyes can be quite different than what I see in my eyes but we both can find it aesthetically pleasing for different reasons.

Susan LaBar-Schrum

Start here:

 

The Continental Aesthetics Reader

by Clive Cazeaux

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0415200547/qid=1090984582/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-3306842-1083051?v=glance&s=books

Currently I'm reading, The Imagination as a Means of Grace by Ernest Tuveson, in

which an abundant erudite ideas come forth in an endless flow of intrepretation on

aesthetics, sublime, fancy, imagination. I have yet to undestand all thse complexe

issures. I think Edmond Burke's ideas on the sublime and aesthetics needs some

venturing on my part.

I can tell this, besides technical considerations the moment of creation seems unreal,

yet, all the more real for its time outside time. It's a contradiction of realities captured

by a unique mind.

"I want to find out the ingredients so people can cook better pictures."

 

Who is going to judge whether or not a specific set of ingredients will make a better picture? Will it be the creator of the art or the observer? What is the objective of this "better picture"? Does getting the highest rating from the largest number of people define a "better picture?" Or is a "better picture" defined by the creator of the art who by judging his or her work decide they have achieved their goal by doing the best work they possibly can? As an artist my goal is to please myself. If others like my work then

that's fine too but it's not my primary goal.

 

The chaos theory is at work in all forms of art. Personal tastes dictates what each individual will define as aesthetically best. If you are instead using some set of rules to decide what is aesthetically best then you are missing the whole point of art which is to bring enjoyment to those who experience it.

 

If you want a traditional definition of what makes a "better picture" you would do well to read books about composition. Looking for a specific set of ingredients to "cook better pictures" is a fools errand.