[superhuzza]

I feel like you're imposing very strict definitions on what is inherently a very ambiguous or 'loose' field.

>Beauty is the goal of art.

I don't think so. Lots of paintings are not beautiful, but are very meaningful and artistic. For example, I find many of Frida Kahlo's works to be extremely artistic but not beautiful.

>Lyrics are what diminishes music

So you think that a song like 'Hurt' (NIN or Cash) is diminished by the very well written lyrics? Or that lyrics with certain rhyming structures subtract from the musicality of a song?

[hodwic]

> Lots of paintings are not beautiful, but are very meaningful and artistic.

Like the GP, you're using a definition of beauty which is not at all standard in the field of aesthetics.

If the work is visually meaningful and artistic, while producing a feeling that is in some way sublime, transcendental, revelatory, etc., then that's beauty you're seeing.

> you think that a song like 'Hurt' (NIN or Cash) is diminished by the very well written lyrics

Lyrics will make bad music better, by distracting from the music. Strip away the lyrics, and the underlying music in Hurt is pathetic when stood up against just about any Classical, Jazz, Progressive, et all, piece.

Lyrics != music. Lyrics are a thing added to music.

> I feel like you're imposing very strict definitions on what is inherently a very ambiguous or 'loose' field.

This is a very common sentiment among people who have not read anything from the last 3,000 years of the philosophy of aesthetics. :-P

[superhuzza]

No, of course I'm not using the definition of beauty from a specific branch of philosophy. In common language, that's simply not what's understood by the word beauty.

[hodwic]

"Aesthetics" isn't a branch of philosophy, unless you consider Formal Logic, Physics and Psychology branches of philosophy as well, it's separate a field of study.

Aesthetics is the sum total of all branches that relate to the thing we're all discussing here.

To flippantly suggest that your misguided lay definition of beauty is preferable in aesthetics than the one hashed out for the last 3000 years by those in the field, is silly.

That's like when laymen remind one that: "Evolution is just a theory", and ask why "monkeys didn't evolve as much as people did".

Any one with a science education will explain that they don't know what the technical terms theory and evolve mean.

And then they'll respond as you did: "I'm using the terms theory and evolve in the normal lay sense, like Conspiracy Theory and Pokemon Evolution. Evolution is just like your philosophy, man."

Don't be that guy.

If you're uninterested in a central field of the humanities, with a rich history going back to Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus in the west, and further in the east, you don't have to go about arguing it on the internet like it's something you're in any way invested in, while spreading blanket falsehoods about the field.

If you think your having looked at Art makes you technically savvy enough to argue aesthetics, ask yourself if Facebook users are thus made qualified to argue software.

[superhuzza]

What are you even talking about? Aesthetics is literally considered a branch of western philosophy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Branches_of_philosoph...

I'm not suggesting my definition of beauty is better, but it's definitely more appropriate given the context. Language is meant to communicate, which is why it's context sensitive. If someone tells me they have a theory about why the sink is blocked, I don't expect it to be a scientific theory - given the context.

And since I make a living from art and design, yeah I feel that I am qualified to have a few opinions on art. But maybe I should just leave that to the philosophers eh?

[hodwic]

Aesthetics is a philosophy in the sense that all serious studies are. (Hence PhD, Doc·tor of Phi·los·o·phy, being the catch all for masters of most intellectual pursuits.)

That self-same wikipedia page you listed also denotes Logic and Cosmology as branches of Philosophy, and the Wikipedia page for Philosophy also lists Physics, Mathematics, Economics, Linguistics. Calling aesthetics a "branch" of philosophy in the pejorative sense that you have here is absurd, given that just about any serious humanity is technically an area of Philosophy.

Yes, I agree that language is contextual. And when you discovered that you were using a very informal definition of beauty on a board full of extremely well educated pedants, while having yourself only a middling appreciation for the study of aesthetics, you'd think your language would modify to reflect that realization. :D

As to your field -- working in a field related to Aesthetics does not mean you have education in Aesthetics.

I make a living in Art and design as well, but that isn't the foundation for my arguments in Aesthetics. Quite the contrary. People working in Art are usually some of the least educated in aesthetics, since our art education has been destroyed by baby boomer hippies.

Don't confuse your craft of Art, with the science of aesthetics.

That would be as absurd as an engineer arguing that his having built a building which stands up to gravity means he has a strong education in the study of gravity. The one hardly relates to the other.

The ability to create works which stand up to the gravity of Aesthetics does not mean that one has a strong education in Aesthetics itself.

Now, I'm not going to say that every engineer who hasn't studied theoretical physics is in a poor position to be an engineer, but it certainly tells you something about their seriousness if they haven't read any books in the field.

Further, if an engineer went to some length to pejoratively tell me that Physics is just a branch of western philosophy when debating the theoretical foundation of the force of gravity, I'd similarly call them out as seemingly not serious.