>>25171274
nah, start with Schiller and end with Von Hildebrand

>>25171274
You start with the Greeks.

>>25171274
I'm really curious about some kind of aesthetic philosophy too, but I think I'm too fried for it. I spent my whole life digging into experimental art/music and have ended up truly getting emotional reactions out of some of the dumbest shit. I've convinced myself sometimes that music/art made by children with no experience can be the best possible, because they're constantly making decisions that surprise me, decisions I could never make myself. Most people seem to have "rules" about aesthetics, things that work and things that don't, things that "good art" does and should never do, and I feel like there's always exceptions to rules like that so idk where to look.
I feel like the only thing that makes sense to me and covers everything is that nothing is good or bad, it's just about whether or not I have access to it. Shitty music I liked when I was a kid that I would not like at all if I found now, it's still good because I can access it, I remember being there in the right time/place so I can feel it the way it's supposed to be felt. There's so much I love that people think is garbage, and there's so much I don't like that people think is brilliant, I don't know how there could be any way to define what's successful or isn't besides that the art just exists and it's my job to try and find something in it.
If anyone's got a book they could rec to me that seems approachable from where I am I'd appreciate it

>>25171425
>has legitimate good taste
>still haunted by the spook of the public's discerning vocalizations

>>25171435
lmao what do you mean? I don't think I'm haunted by what other people like, but it definitely comes into play when trying to find or share stuff. When I was younger I definitely thought I had good taste and most other people didn't, but as I've gotten older I've realized by way of trusting other people that I didn't have it all figured out. Some stuff that I wouldn't normally like if I found it on my own, became good once the right person showed it to me because I was sort of able to see it through their lens. Other people are a part of the picture for me, but I think for myself

>>25171441
>asserting independence
>still referencing self in relation to others
>extremely concerned with webs they weave

>>25171471
lol, idk man it's interesting. The point for me is simply to enjoy stuff or be inspired by it. If I learn that a certain book/album/whatever is a classic from an era I wasn't alive in and I kinda like it but don't quite get the big picture, I'll be curious about other people's thoughts, or I'll want to check out some stuff that inspired it or other stuff from that time period. If I can find a way in then I've succeeded.
A lot of my favorite stuff in any medium is stuff that is pretty deep into a particular niche, something that wouldn't be very accessible to an outsider. I'm not gonna ignore stuff like that just because I might need some context or thoughts from people on the inside.
I guess I don't see myself as super independent, but I only ever use other people as a way into stuff, never as a way out. I'm not gonna dislike something because the consensus is that it's bad, but if the consensus is that it's good that might inspire me to look into it
so you're not wrong, but I don't see that as a bad thing.
Anyway I'm just looking for a book rec lol

>>25171484
>assuming observations are criticisms
It's not a bad thing anon, don't worry, I'm just pointing it out. I have a great need to do so and it is my highest form of enjoyment, and helps me further my own understanding of myself and the things I am forced to interact with day to day.
I can't recommend where you should start, but I enjoyed a book once called The Poetics of Space, which is along the lines of the aesthetic practice, but for me, much nicer.

>>25171493
lol word yeah, I did assume that but greentexting like that usually is a crit tbf, ngmi implied
>one of the most appealing and lyrical explorations of home. Bachelard takes us on a journey, from cellar to attic, to show how our perceptions of houses and other shelters shape our thoughts, memories, and dreams.
seems cool anon, thanks for the rec

>>25171498
sure usually, but the critical eye sees past the greentext that assaults them
in other words -- aesthetics

that quote you shared about the book doesn't do it justice. read a few pages. it's pretty cool

File: 452416943_115453427895355(...).jpg (969 KB, 1440x1440)

969 KB JPG

>>25171274
Heidegger's alright, but check out this guy who writes about video games and is i genuinely think one of the smartest souls alive right now:
https://myfriendpokey.tumblr.com/post/175137112840/my-friend-computer
https://harmonyzone.org/blog/posts/donkeykongcity/
https://harmonyzone.org/blog/posts/soapbox/
https://myfriendpokey.tumblr.com/post/778118548818182144/my
https://harmonyzone.org/text/existenz.html
https://harmonyzone.org/text/monsterparty.html

Just get a general introductory text and survey of the field, that's what they're for. What is with you retards who jump into one theorists view without even getting the context first? This applies to all philosophy. Read an intellectual history and something like an oxford handbook before bothering with specific arguments.

>>25171510
>not being able to immediately tell the landscape of a philosophy by reading a theorist without context

File: 71kQn27s+4L._AC_UF1000,10(...).jpg (65 KB, 697x1000)

65 KB JPG

>>25171510
This is good advice for me, I straight up never read philosophy and I think this has been why. I didn't know shit like that exists. You think "oxford handbook" is the best search terms to find this kinda thing on most given subjects?

>>25171425
>spent my whole life digging into experimental art/music
I've done plenty of that. You may remember a project called Arseterror years ago.

>>25171515
Oxford handbooks are a solid series by an academic publisher, there are other good ones to be aware of:
Other academic publishers like Blackwell, Routledge, Brill, and Bloomsbury also have handbooks.
Also look for Cambridge/Oxford/Routledge etc. histories.
Routledge has their 'world' series, oxford has their 'very short introduction' series, bloomsbury has their 'guide for the perplexed series', cambridge has their 'companion' series.

Look through the publisher websites or look through the recommended sections of z-lib to find more of what's out there.

>>25171522
lol hell yeah, I don't know that, but I like plenty of noise. I ran a DIY venue in my city for almost a decade and booked a lot of noise shows. We just got evicted by the city last summer rip
>>25171528
good tips, thanks anon, this definitely seems like my way in. I like the oxford world's classics editions for fiction because of all the *notes for context/history but I didn't know they did this type of thing. Seems way more approachable to me than one writer's arguments many years deep into the conversation

>>25171274
deleuze on bacon is ok, but really? do the 101 course - do plato, neoplatonists ficino type motherfuckers, do kant, do derrida on kant... the foundation, the categories, are all worth looking at as they reappear if only to be argued about or against. personally i dig the german formalists, empathy dudes. skip hegel. jump into good old historians who have philosophy creeping out their skin.

>>25171543
The obsession with referencing the original dorks is the most unaesthetic thing I can imagine. And I don't even have to imagine it

>>25171547
thats a really stupid thing to say. ficino for example is quite pleasant to read and interesting. but you may as well know fucking plato. its not like plato has 16 fucking volumes to slog through. cant speak for anyone else, as its certainly not an obsession of mine. jumping to 1000 plateaus is utterly counterproductive if you want to spend time in the land of aesthetics.

>>25171555
>doesn't know what it looks like when someone cosplays as an aesthetic
>baited by beauty

>>25171559
not even an interesting comment.

and i didnt say "read the greeks" i said read some plato, then try a neo-platonist. try some kant then a critique of kant. then read a historian and see where that leads you. beauty, ugly, pick your categories. make a line of flight up your ass, cunt.

>>25171578
>concerned with being stimulated
>babbles on and on
>really give it to em at the end

>>25171583
greentexts
says nothing of interest
is also an ass

>>25171597
>still concerned with being stimulated
>can't relax on the flowing stream of life
>really gives it to em at the end again
>is interesting
>isn't stuck in habitual action

>>25171600
fuck off john cage

>>25171651
>offers advice
>doesn't offer baklava
>falls in love with greentexter
>paces in anticipation while he goes to bed for hours... upon hours......... upon hours

>>25171604
>holds no flickered light betwixt skinned and peeking hands

>>25171659
Why did you start a new thread?

>>25171686
bitch gotta bitch

>>25171274
>inb4 filtered
Von Balthasar Glory of the Lord, Vol. 1

>>25171773
is this gross christian shit?

>>25171781
>I hate the most beautiful buildings in all of Europe because I want to masturbate
Nice!

File: 4chan bar.jpg (77 KB, 970x639)

77 KB JPG

>>25171274
What's your own philosophy on aesthetics anon?

>>25171787
I think aesthetics essentially has two types: 1) spiritual resonance and 2) objective resonance. Part of the issue of aesthetics is that we over-democratize and say basically "don't yuck my yum" or on the other side say "beauty is objective." It is there that there is objective beauty but not everyone is conformed to objective beauty subjectively. For example, what Epstein found beautiful would have an element of sadism in the deepest sense, this type of aesthetic is a resonance to their current state spiritually. People in hell like ugly and grotesque things not because they are beautiful, but they will say it is, but rather because it is cathartic as it says something like, "Yes, that is my reality." This is like Game of Thrones or Squid Game for the post-modern, post-religion, and post-home West, where everyone is unleashed against everyone else in an amoral contest for riches and sexual pleasure. It's not objectively beautiful because it's not objectively true but it spiritually resonates. Our goal should be to conform ourselves to objective beauty which is the drama of beautiful deeds, most definitively defined by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and His saints.

>>25171790
>1) spiritual resonance
>2) objective resonance
>Our goal should be to conform ourselves to objective beauty which is the drama of beautiful deeds, most definitively defined by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and His saints.
Interesting. So our experience/phenomenology with aesthetics seems to share the dyophysitism of the spiritual (metaphysical) and objective (physical) natures we see in the prototype of Christ (and to an extension the Saints that are Christ-like).
I've been approaching this as a metaphysician when it comes to diagnosing bad degenerative aesthetics/art with what spiritual ailment it has and/or what it is lacking in substance (in relation to Christ's Ideal of Good/Regenerative Aesthetics); while also from that objective lens of human taste and sensibility (e.g. a stick figure of something holy needs improvement in iconography to a familiar beautiful standard). In this way, aesthetic heuristics play an important part in identifying beauty both in an object both energetically and in its essence (like the book cover matching its contents).
Would you agree that aesthetics act as perceivable physical windows into the spiritual (good or bad). Like you can learn a lot about Epstein's soul by what aesthetics appealed to him.

>>25171753
>>25171686
>an attempt

>>25171274
Lessing's Laocoon, Burke's On the Sublime, Kant's Third Critique, Hegel's lectures on aesthetics.

>>25171274
plato>aristotle>baumgarten>hume>kant>hegel>heidegger

>>25171274
Read Ananda Coomaraswamy. Anything else is superfluous.

>>25171274
Schiller, Schiller, Schiller, Schiller, Schiller for beauty and sublime
fpbp btw

for a Definition of Art, work out your own, it's hard but basically art is aesthetic structure that manages to tap into your brain and mirror some concepts you have in there: I draw a circle and add dashes around it, the drawing come as one because of aesthetic, and once you see it as one you recognize that the drawing mirror the essential characteristics of a sun, boom art

Keyword for art is aesthetic *continuity*. Movies are united by the continuity of frames, a music video by an overarching music binding every frame, often the frame changes in tempo with the music. a song is continuously aesthetic with tempo in time and harmony in space etc. idk, don't forget to think for yourself

Why is art important compared to philosophy or simply describing the world? I'd say because Art can represent things better than mere words, Ayn Rand said something like this in her work on aesthetic

Art is an activity of world making, of metaphysical creation, a big issue with art is its power to deceive and to take the place of reality in people's minds, I haven't read any work on that subject

An LLM said to me that Hegel said that art is ideas as objects, which I wholly agree with, so I tried to read Hegel but stopped because it's too boring, maybe read Hegel idk

>>25171790
I've come to a similar conclusion. With art you can assess the form is beautiful, in the sense of proportion and harmony of colors etc. but then there is also that part when, you think the ideas depicted are true AND the piece binds true things with beauty in goods proportions, in the sense that things that really matter are aesthetically given great size and beauty, and things that don't very little, this kind of well proportioned presentation of ideas is what makes one say a stronger kind of "Aaaah, this is Beautiful! This speaks to my soul"

I think there's some relevant thinking to do on the concept of "a beautiful idea", I'm convinced this is not a misuse of the word beautiful, but still beautiful is typically used for things you can see or hear, because beauty is form and proportion, so what is a "beautiful idea"? I think often people say "a beautiful idea" to speak of an idea that seems true to them, and that *binds* a lot of things, that unites, it has a power of being connected to everything else and to give sense to many things, and because it's a binding idea, because it gives sense, it probably in a way gives measure to all those ideas that it connects with, maybe it's in that sense that we call an idea beautiful, because it binds and gives measure to many things. When writing things I think of mathematicians who always speak of "beautiful" formulas, and often those formulas are beautiful because they are a highly binding formula, a missing piece that explains everything

Anyway, all that to say, I think art can create immense beauty because it can allow to give actual beauty (form and proportion perceptible by senses) to those beautiful ideas. To me this is the purpose (our purpose in making art) of art in a way, to match that ideal "beauty" (beauty of an idea) with actual beauty

>>25172838
ok coomer

>>25172921
now do discontinuity

>>25172529
all good, skipping hegel is fair. you can utterly go without hegel. not saying hes bad, just you can live without it

>>25171538
Same anon, but I did that project for a decade and a half. Unfortunately people in the noise scene hated me because half the track titles were blatant misogyny or shit like "Hail Pol Pot". I used to troll message board constantly getting in fights with people for no reason back then, like Troniks or The Special Interest board. I called Mikko Aspa Mikko Asperger. I think he banned me for a month.