Aesthetic Meaning

Aesthetics have come to have a different meaning to me since I first enrolled in the class. I have come to think of the advancements we have made on the topic mind-blowing. I think every philosophy we have looked at has held a truth. Schiller says it is nature that equipped man with the ability to move from what is real to what is not. Nature provided man with two senses to help them create; sight and hearing. Once someone can enjoy sight he is aesthetically free. The power of sight gives one the ability to distinguish the image from an object. Appearance becomes an aesthetic value because of its separation from the object itself. One lets their experience influence their ideas of what their existence is. This existence is separate from …show more content…
We can only create because we have the senses that can associate pleasure with their use. But the senses are not enough on their own. We have to be at a pace in our existence that we do not struggle for the necessities of life. This is all based on society and not the individual. A homeless person might make art but, the society he is in has an established framework of basic necessities. Aristotle takes us into the art, and his truth spoke towards our exploration of truth. He saw the difference between poetry and history as the ability go beyond the constraints of what has happened and explore what could happen. Poetry can explore universal truths where history has to seek specific events for validation. Poetry does its best to convey emotions. Poetry can go beyond the barrier 's of history when it uses unexpected situations and events.
I took this as a great truth. Art gives us that ability to go beyond reality. This expectation I think is not a limiting quality. It is a framework that we can build from to better explore the questions and perceptions of the world around us. Art not only lets us ask these deep questions but challenge them through …show more content…
This is a very powerful conversation in modern discussions of what art is and can be. Bells saw descriptive paintings as something that should not be considered a work of art. He took the approach that art that does not speak to our aesthetic emotion should not be considered art. If the purpose of the art is to present information or give a direction, then it has another function altogether. For a work to be considered art, it must speak to our aesthetic emotions. Works of art must also be the immediate means to good. There are a lot of images that art intended to give different opinions much like the descriptive paintings, descriptive drawings have accurate information. These types of drawing cannot be considered art. I think he was justified in this stance on art of a certain purpose, and it aligns with Tolstoy 's view that art has to be sensor to its