how do you define an aesthetic object? are all of the aesthetic things artistic and aesthetically pleasing?
In: 3
What? How do you mean ‘define’ an ‘aesthetic object? Aesthetic means “concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty”. I think you might be interpreting that word differently than it’s intended.
Much of aesthetics is deeply ingrained in us. There is some subjectivity, but all of us have an appreciation for pattern, symmetry, color harmony, etc.
Look into the Elements and Principles of Design. A lot of what makes stuff look aesthetic comes from balanced design.
The primary meaning of “aesthetic” is the study of why we find find things beautiful.
A secondary meaning may be “beautiful” or “tasteful”, but this isn’t always the same as “artistic”.
===
IMO, my girlfriend is (IMHO) beautiful. I could take a photo of her which captures an expression, or light and shade, or a backdrop, and it’s these which are “artistic”.
Picasso’s [Bull’s head](https://www.pablopicasso.org/bull-head.jsp) is art but I wouldn’t class it as aesthetic.
Aestheics concerns the philosophy of beauty, taste, and also art. Aesthetics can also concern the natural world.
With regard to a specific example, asthetic refers to a quality an object possesses rather than a category to which it belongs. As such, anything which can be described in terms beauty or taste can have an aesthetic, not just Art.
Everyone, please, don’t just guess if you don’t know the answer; OP isn’t asking about the dictionary definition of “aesthetic,” they’re asking about the philosophical concept of an “aesthetic object” as interrogated by Edmund Burke.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/aesthetics/The-aesthetic-object
An aesthetic object, in the sense I think you mean, is our mental image of an object. It’s what we subjectively think that an object is. In the classical example, if we see a white cloth and believe it is a ghost, the white cloth is an object and the ghost is our aesthetic object.
This concept doesn’t have to literally be aesthetically pleasing, no, but it’s generally only a *useful* concept in the context of aesthetically pleasing things, like art.
Nobody here is explaining this to a 5year old.
(Using a [good](https://c.neevacdn.net/image/fetch/s–eu15MZKN–/https%3A//i.pinimg.com/originals/7e/45/ad/7e45ad10cb5328cc1d4ba2a4b546d5bb.jpg?savepath=7e45ad10cb5328cc1d4ba2a4b546d5bb.jpg) photo vs one [bad](https://c.neevacdn.net/image/fetch/s–xeqsnrmm–/https%3A//www.22places.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/jr-train-station-japan.jpg?savepath=jr-train-station-japan.jpg))
As a photographer one can say one image is aesthetic and the other one is not because one is **easier to see**
Easy to see means that the message is clear and readable, you will know instantly what you are looking at. Not only that but the way it was capture was intentional and well crafted, it’s telling a story.
The other one shows a similar place but is not as good conveying the message and is definitely not telling a story in the same compelling way, the bad image has a harder time telling a story.
I used photos as the object for my example, but this example could be easily transfered to sculpture, paintings, architecture, fashion, etc.
I hope you find this interesting
Latest Answers