Can we articulate what aesthetics is?

[hanna_cowpe]

If aesthetics is concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty, particularly in art, then I believe it can be both inherent and learned. It's culturally based as can be seen in the appreciation of certain physical attributes among races or in native art. The prevalence of landscape images in the TRP is probably because it is a natural subject and therefore hasn't had so much human influence on its design, particularly unmanipulated landscape. Art imitates nature, sometimes well and sometimes not so well. I think that's where aesthetics comes into it; does art connect us to some aspects of nature through the use of colour, form, shape, rhythm, texture etc. and does it evoke an emotional response.

[WJT]

It is an emotional resonance between that which is observed and the observer. Just as the strings of a violin will sympathetically vibrate in response to a certain acoustic stimulus, so to the psyche of humanity in response to the conveyed emotion. The greater the reinforcement in the emotional vibration, the greater the response of the observer. Regardless of it being auditory, visual, or tactile, all of one's senses are involved in the experience. It transcends culture and persists through time.

 

Being of only average intelligence, I myself tend to concentrate on the genre mentioned in your study. A Landscape is a portrait of humanity's place of creation. It is, for me, a view into life's begining, as well as life's journey to its future. Regards.

[roome jee]

To me some thing aesthetically good must contain emotions.

How many of us are from the same school of thought?

[saskphotog]

Hmm.... Just ignored me.

 

While many of you are thinking in terms of emotional reaction to the image being the source of "aesthetic" appreciation, you are not addressing the origins of that emotion. Why do you react emotionally?

 

Arguing it's genetic (and hence evolutionary) is to continue to ignore the question. Why would we have an evolutionary genetic code that produces an emotional reaction to things like the stone and sand patterns in a Zen garden? There is something more to aesthetics than just learned responses to "pretty" things or patterns useful for survival (like babies noticing faces).

 

Why is music? What is humor? Dance? All these things are symptoms of man's aesthetic appreciation, and they all must be included in thinking about an explanation of the aesthetics of photography.

[jkantor]

So is the purpose of this forum to just start from scratch with every basic philosophical question? These have come up before over, say, the last 2500 years or so - and in more exhaustive detail than "the dictionary" provides. Then again, maybe we should just let pop culture icons decide: I propose that it's whatever litmus test Martha Stewart uses to pronounce something "a good thing."

[WJT]

Well, John, maybe Roome would just like to know what we all think. I did not have a problem putting forth my thoughts concerning his question. After all. the patient is not going to die if we make a mistake here. But I think that you're on to something with Martha. Regards.

[richard_milner2]

Personally I find it ridiculous to reduce 'originality' and 'aesthetics' to a seven point scale so I never bother, and I ignore any ratings given my own images.

 

As to why people tend to rate landscapes highly, I have to assume that they like them the best.

 

The interpretation of 'aesthetics' is significantly subjective, though there are rules and methods of thinking about this topic, which influence people.

 

As for originality, unless I have seen and can remember every picture ever taken, how can I possibly decide how original an image is?

[nomade]

If we accept that beauty is the positive value for aesthetics, maybe you will find interesting this graffity, that in a public wall statted:

 

"Beauty will be eatable,

or will be nothing!"

 

True?

[richard_milner2]

One definition is the appreciation of beauty but another definition is the appreciation of art. Although a lot of art is based on beauty, that is much less true in modern art which is often based on abstract or psychologically challenging themes.

[timecatcher]

Well to me I'll keep it simple when it comes to photo.net, aesthetics is

simply the feeling a picture gives me and the emotion and mood it portrays.

Pat - Timecatcher.com

[osamaesid]

first of all Thank you so much for inviting me over to this topic

it's really interesting something really need to discuss .I have nothing to add but ,please accept this image

[saintjohn]

Aesthetics is the special way your eye sees it so that you take the picture to show that special way of seeing it to the world.

 

Aesthetics is seeing in other people's photographs their special thoughts about the subject.

[._._z]

As opposed to the way your eye hears?

 

Or the way your nose sees?

[._._z]

Aesthetics: <p>

 

<u><A href =

http://snipurl.com/7scs>Google: accumulated definitions</a></u> <p>

 

<u><A href =

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics>Wikipedia definition</a></u>

[fotokrelles]

Leslie Cheung named ingredients of a good image. I'd like to add that to me aesthetics is a blance of these ingredients.

My 2 cents.

[twmeyer]

When considering aesthetic issues conversationally, I try to keep in mind the term <p>"anesthetic"<p>

Function: adjective<p>

1 : of, relating to, or capable of producing anesthesia<p>

2 : lacking awareness or sensitivity<p>

I like the last one "lacking awareness or sensitivity"<p>A particular aesthetic sensibility can be unappealing to some, yet still be recognized as having a pronounced and particular awareness and sensitivity. <p>Consider the aesthetic of -Heronimous Bosch or Joel Peter Witkin-, as compared to the aesthetic of -William Eggleston or Robert Adams- and to that of -Paul Strand and Lee Freidlander-. They may not share a <i>common</i> aesthetic, yet they possess a distinct and undeniable awareness that is expressed consistently in their work, and can thereby be recognized as genuine.<p>A shared aesthetic may be a pleasant experience, but a new, strange aesthetic is a challenging and refreshing one that can awaken in you a sensibility other than that which you already knew... t

[twmeyer]

I meant to add, that a work lacking in aesthetic sensibility creates in me no response... an intellectual numbness similar to novocaine on my lip. <p>So while I may not be able to define "aesthetics", I can recognize its absence... t

[saskphotog]

I'll try one more time since Tom Meyer is hinting in the same direction with:

"Consider the aesthetic of -Heronimous Bosch or Joel Peter Witkin-, as compared to the aesthetic of -William Eggleston or Robert Adams- and to that of -Paul Strand and Lee Freidlander-. They may not share a common aesthetic, yet they possess a distinct and undeniable awareness that is expressed consistently in their work, and can thereby be recognized as genuine."

 

Right!

 

What they all share, the common denominator, the essential essence of aesthetics is that "awareness that is expressed consistently" and "can be recognized as genuine".

 

But, awareness of what? Genuine in what sense?

 

My original post spoke of aesthetic appreciation rising from awareness of purity of intent. The aesthetic experience is the awareness (whether conscious or uncounscious) of that genuine connection with truth that some people can express in art of all forms, from painting to photography to dance to athletics.

 

The ability to connect with that purity of intent gets talked about in many ways. Religions call it "grace", poets talk of a "muse", athletes talk about the "zone", but it's all the same thing. It's a state of "connectedness" that allows one to create something that can connect others with the same purity.

[gary m]

I don't think that I can provide a specific answer to the question that is significantly different from the responses above. However, I've read an interesting book that may provide a little insight. In the book "Drawing on the Artist Within", by Betty Edwards, the author asks the reader to draw several emotions such as joy, anger, peacefulness, etc. The drawings can't have recognizable symbols or specific objects - they just consist of lines and curves, differing pressure on the pencil, etc. I conducted the exercise as instructed, then compared my results to examples that were in the book. My results were surprising similar to the examples in the book. What this implies as it relates to aesthetics is that many people communicate in a similar way when it comes to a visual communication. A visual or 'artistic' communication is driven by the right side of the brain, whereas verbal communication and logic is controlled by the left side of the brain. If you've ever noticed that when you're "in the zone" taking photos or doing other artistic work, it's difficult to talk to others - you may seem a bit distant and have to "snap out of it" to have a meaningful conversation. This is because while you're in the artistic mode, your right brain is in control (that's the theory Betty Edwards presents).

 

Trying to put aesthetics (right brain) into logical, systematic terms (left brain) is difficult. Many people get frustrated when the dominant, logical left brain isn't in control. However, when it comes to viewing and appreciating art, I think that we have to allow the non-logical side to take control.

[mspanakis]

From a reductionist biologist's point of view, Aesthetics may merely be a sort of chemical reaction (yet to be characterised) occurring at the brain, triggered by some combination of sensory stimuli and resulting in the secretion of "well-being" hormones. But don't take me seriously, I am only a biologist.

[fast_primes]

I understand where Romme is coming from, so I suggest a study of Japanese Aesthetics as I find it especially profound and relevant to my own aestectics/photography. Click on this url:

 

<a href="http://www3.baylor.edu/BIC/WCIII/Essays/Japanese.html"><i>Japanese Aesthetics</i></a> for a excellent introduction on the subject by Donald Keene. I've quoted some snippets from the url below:

<br><br>

snip:<i><br>

In everything, no matter that it may be, uniformity is undesirable. Leaving something incomplete makes it interesting, and gives one the feeling that there is room for growth. Someone once told me, 'Even when building the imperial palace, they always leave one place unfinished.' . . . People often say that a set of books looks ugly if all volumes are not in the same format, but I was impressed to hear the Abbot Koyu say, 'It is typical of the unintelligent man to insist on assembling complete sets of everything. Imperfect sets are better.'<br><br>

</i>

snip:<i><br>

A house, I know, is but a temporary abode, but how delightful it is to find one that has harmonious proportions and a pleasant atmosphere. One feels somehow that even moonlight, when it shines into the quiet domicile of a person of taste, is more affecting than elsewhere. A house, though it may not be in the current fashion or elaborately decorated, will appeal to us by its unassuming beauty -- a grove of trees with an indefinably ancient look; a garden where plants, growing of their own accord, have a special charm; a verandah and an open-work wooden fence of interesting construction; and a few personal effects left lying about, giving the place an air of having been lived in. A house which multitudes of workmen have polished with every care, where strange and rare Chinese and Japanese furnishings are displayed, and even the bushes and trees of the garden have been trained unnaturally, is ugly to look at and most depressing. How could anyone live for long in such a place?<br><br>

</i>

snip:<i><br>

The famous Japanese tea ceremony is perhaps the most extreme example of the Japanese love of simplicity, or unobtrusive elegance. The ideal sought by the great teamaster Sen no Rikyu (1422-1491 was sabi, related to the word sabi, for "rust," or sabireru, "to become desolate." The sabi so esteemed by Rikyu was not the enforced simplicity of the man who could not afford better, but a refusal of easily obtainable, luxury, a preference for the rusty-looking kettle to one of gleaming newness. Even today Japanese are quite willing to spend a great deal of money on utensils for the tea ceremony, such as earthenware cups, which, to Western eyes, look quite ordinary.

</i><br><br>

There are of course, other alternative aestectics!

[indraneel]

Here's my take before reading what is discussed and getting biased. Photography is inherrently a creative art. One makes a picture although one can mutiliate the subject matter for the purpose. It is logical to suppose that photo makers would be creative rather than destructive. As such, the viewpoint for a photographer becomes biased to begin with. Creativity presupposes order and harmony, consistence and consonance with the environment. Photographers search harmony even in pictures of war, even "original" gruesome depictions adhere to set norms of previously-broken-rules of composition. It would be good to learn from an older art form like `music' about aesthetics. There is pattern and regularity even when these are broken, there is composition in placement of higher and lower frequencies like color on a photograph, there are difference in qualities of sound, timbre (tone ;), like the "tonal" variations in a picture, an underlying regularity of percussion intruments ties music together however much the lead instruments might change, just like the individual parts of a picture need to "come-together" or "flow from one to the other". The opening bars are designed to lead you into the music, sometimes even by jarring the audience, a few "immediately-noticeable" items, which need not always be bright or contrasty, in a picture engage the viewer to "look-around" into it. People will think when they see a picture, always, and thoughts will always be different. There needs to be variation in the theme so that different thoughts are possible, even a pattern of windows needs to convey something more than just the pattern, maybe show the individuality of the elements or be part of some other larger theme or idea -- like rust on the POW last week. The more "social clues" a picture has, more will/of the audience will think likewise. Pictures of logging a rain-forest are not made to depict "profits", although it is possible to do so. There are set rules, working within which will ensure greater acceptance, a harmony with the viewer's ideas which may sometimes be called "aesthetically pleasing". Change-in-moderation is a part of that idea, called originality, and when blended in by an amount that the audience desires, will conform to the rules and "enhance aesthetics". I doubt if my granpa would have had a high opinion of "scantily clad women" in public beaches, but to my son on the beaches of Goa or California it would probably look "just cool" (I don't have a kid and go ga-ga so am giving it a generation more :) .

[mark_curtis1]

Very subjective to be sure. But for me the goal with my landscape photos in particular is to convey a sense of longing to be where I was when I took the photo! I'm trying to capture not only the mood of the image, but MY mood. I want you to feel what I'm feeling no matter how remote that might be. That is my entire motivation for wanting to show the landscape in a certain form and context. This is why the beauty of the landscape alone...while a major component of that conveyance...isn't always enough. And the extra DIMENSION of aesthetics takes hold.

[Allen Herbert]

We at some degree do recognize what originality is, but do we understand what aesthetics is?

 

Most folk are conservative by nature...nice and safe. So, there's an understanding.

[codepic]

Aesthetics in a photo is how well it keeps the eye, how hard it is to take your eyes from it, how well it invites you back to look at it after you've left it. It can be ugly, it can be beautiful. But it definitely invites you back.

<br><br>

Aesthetics have nothing to do with the ingredients that form the aesthetic combination. Like said, it's the combination.

<br><br>

Of course you can go on with an endless debate on what those ingredients are, but then you're not talking about aesthetics anymore. It's like examining human by human to understand what a nation is. Or like chopping wood trying to find out what forest is. You have to go there, open your mind and see it for yourself...

<br><br>

But remember, when it comes to photos. The more aesthetic it is, the more itinvites you to look at it again and again.

<br><br>

If you need to understand it better, don't try to disassemble the photo. Instead, try to understand yourself. The aesthetic photo plays you, like an instrument. The aesthetics raises from you. Inside.

<br><br>

There is no spoon...