Are there any other aesthetic objectivists that are more philosophically rigorous than this old chunk of coal?

are there any other aesthetic objectivists that are more philosophically rigorous than this old chunk of coal?

Attached: Scruton.jpg (201x251, 9K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/X6i6UvbsXvM
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I’m 99.9999% certain butterfly has saved my phone number

I’m :3 sorry

shut up

Why you dislike him?

He's sophistic. He doesn't really create a truly objective framework of what beauty actually is.

Have you read a single one of his books or just watched that meme documentary?

I read about the first third of On Beauty until I quickly realized he wasn't basing his arguments on the bedrock of a scientific foundation and was basically just saying "back in the day everything was conventionally attractive and shit". As someone who appreciates Schoenberg and Braques and modern architecture (especially Brutalism), I don't even like or agree with his position.

Jew detected.

I don't know of anyone, but have considered the question for years myself, and the following was written partly in response to this idea of bare symbolism; and, I suppose, the Heideggerian idea of re-enframing art.

>The purpose of art is not to be beautiful, but to commune with beauty. There is a subtle, yet very important, difference here that conservatives will miss - as they follow the same fundamental laws of humanist aesthetics: technique, instrumentation, and existence. The moderns attempt to give life to the material, revivify it with its own vitality, because this is the form of being in which modern man experiences the world, attempts to ascend to sovereignty; as if beauty could exist free of divine law. The obsession with being is both particularly and ineluctably humanist, we begin with the object in itself because there is no source from which the artistic arises and may return. And so the object is deprived of its vitality just as it begins to feed on beauty - thus the object escapes into the horizon, as if the beautiful existed without our being there. It is crossed out, desecrated into its own fleeing form.

I'm nearly done the essay so I can give you more fragments if you'd like, my definition of beauty, or just discuss your original question. Like you, I would be very interested to read objective readings of art and beauty. Besides Hegel and Plato, I am only aware of Plotinus, supposed to be very good but have not gotten to him yet.

Also, my definition of art.
>The perfection of art is a moment of Beauty, while its completion is communion with Form. Art is not the central force itself, but the pathing through which ceremony is performed as an ode within memory - an antistrophe to the Muses, monuments to their dancing so that they will not sing to the gods against us.

Scruton's a bitter hack who fancies himself a more controversial and morally righteous Kenneth Clark. Read Hitchens if you want contrarian takes with good prose.

>Read Hitchens
which one

based tobacco salesman

Evolutionary psychology gives some insight of why certain things are more "aesthetic" in a objetive, grounded fashion. It isn't perfect or anything, but it is better then pretty much all other objective aesthetics theories run on hidden assumptions, lazy value judgment, and blatant bullshit.

lol Hitchensposter does it again.

Give a tldr.

>especially Brutalism
when will this meme end

Kek

>aesthetic objectivist
wtf does this even mean?

>thicc women are objectively more beautiful than stick because we've evolved to look for exterior signs of fertility, such as wide hips.

I think you need to define thicc to justify that kind of statement, user. It means a lot of different things to people.

Pretty sure he means the understanding of art from the viewpoint that its values and beauty are objective. Essentially, that there are eternal laws of good art.

Problem with this is that we are not evolving, thicc is a very recent meme, and women have been 'selected' based on more masculine or graceful traits. Tall and slender women have been the ideal for some time.
More precisely, there may be shifts back and forth between 'thicc' and athletic/graceful, as most images of female form I am aware of tend to be in the middle ground. And there's not a lot of black women and the overweight figures represented in European art, so evolutionary theory fales with even a cursory understanding of art history.

>Problem with this is that we are not evolving,
lol

>thicc women are objectively more beautiful than stick because we've evolved to look for exterior signs of fertility, such as wide hips

I absolutely fucking despise "evolutionary" theories of things
You can just imagine that they've all been pulled out the ass of some redditor

It doesn't 'fail'. It's all one thing and that is genetic survival, in this case fertility which can be indicated by curves but also by youth. There's also health as indicated by symmetry or fitness. Overweight people become attractive when food is sparse. But of course this isn't all there is. There's a psychological nature to attraction which isn't easily explained by evolutionary theory since it has to do with consciousness and culture. We might find a face attractive which seems to convey a virtue within out cultural context. You see this in type cast actors. Or we just might associate a certain look (or even object) with our first sexual feelings. We are complicated but the theory of evolution is invaluable in explaining human behaviour.

What meme? Brutalism looks cool. You can't just automatically invalidate things by calling them memes, you know.

Attached: Montreal_-_QC_-_Habitat67.jpg (3580x2276, 3.35M)

Nonsense, and you didn't address anything I said.
Where are the masterpieces throughout history of fat black single moms who have never exercised a day in there life?
And no, art is not simply a representation of what is genetically viable. And thicc is not an indicator of health and fitness.
Nor is obesity going to be a sign of beauty in an age of food scarcity. Where did you even get this idea?

>bedrock of scientific foundation

>>>>reddit

>enjoys Schoenberg

Opinion disregarded

I'm not saying that art is just a representation of what is genetically viable, in fact I said the opposite. And again; thicc largely means curvy, which is indeed an indicator of fertility. We have data on that by now and we have artistic representations of this that are 30,000 years old.

>Where are the masterpieces throughout history of fat black single moms who have never exercised a day in there life?

I don't even know what you mean by that, even if I ignore the black and single mom part (google 'rubenesque'). Are you arguing my point now? Of course attraction is connected to survival, that's why sexual selection exists. Obesity under usual circumstances is not a good sign, but it could be. But that's a weak variable since the broader or inherent genetic attractions have to do with strength, fertility and health. But things like glasses could go into fashion if they're perceived as a sign of intelligence in an era where the survival value of intelligence increases in relation to maybe good eye sight. The human sexual selection process is influenced by reason.

Is this really what you want to argue about? Do you think evolution is bullshit in general?

forgot pic

Attached: 220px-Venus_von_Willendorf_01.jpg (220x414, 21K)

>es with good prose.
>Hitchens
lol

IF THERE IS ONE FUCKING IMAGE ON THE INTERNET THAT MAKES ME SEETHE IT IS THIS ONE

HOLY GODDAMN SHIT ITS LIKE FUCKING PSEUD-FLYPAPER IT'S LIKE BRAINLETS CAN'T HELP BUT POST IT IT'S LIKE THE GODDAMN LIGHTNING ROD FOR EVO-PSYCH REDUCTIONIST MORONS

MY RAGE DWARFS VY CANIS MAJORIS EVERYTIME SOME FUCKTARD POSTS THIS SHIT

IT IS LITERALLY A FUCKING SOUVENIR FROM SOME ANCIENT TOURIST ATTRACTION. IT IS L I T E R A L L Y THE EQUIVALENT OF A MODERN BOBBLE-HEAD BUDDHA THAT YOU'D BUY IN A FUCKING GIFTSHOP, YOU TARD. IT IS LITERALLY A SINGLE FUCKING OBJECT AND YOURE TRYING TO DEDUCE A WHOLE WORLDVIEW FROM IT. REPULSIVE. IF YOU READ ANYTHING ABOUT IT YOU WOULD KNOW THAT ARCHEOLOGISTS ADMIT THEY DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE WHAT IT'S CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE WAS. IT'D BE LIKE SOME MORON 20,000 YEARS FROM NOW (PROBABLY A DESCENDANT OF YOURS IF IT WASN'T FOR THE FACT THAT YOUR DICK IS TOO SMALL TO EVER IMPREGNATE A WOMAN) WERE TO SAY THAT THE WALMART SMILEY FACE WAS SOME DEITY WORSHIPED ALL ACROSS THE GLOBE

USING THAT FIGURINE AS SOME WARPED ARGUMENT FOR FATFUCKS, EVO-PSYCH BS, OR RELATIVE STANDARDS FOR BEAUTY IS SUCH AN AGGRESSIVE ACT OF STUPIDITY THAT I AM AT A LOSS FOR WORDS. ARGUING BY CONDITIONAL PARTICULARS TO DISPROVE UNCONDITIONED ABSOLUTES *ALL WHILE REDUCING ONTOLOGICAL.COMPLEXITIES TO MERE MECHANISTIC PROCESSES* SHOULD BE PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. SUCH PROFOUND DELUSIONS AND STUPIDITIES WILL NEVER BE REFORMED AND YOU'LL GET NOTHING MORE FROM ME THAN A SINCERELY SENT: ' KILL YOUR SELFF'

Alrighty, I'll leave you to it then.

Attached: thicc.jpg (632x810, 127K)

OOOOOOO MASSA

As someone who works in evobio you are completely correct. Evolutionary psychology is pretty much and garbage and unscientific as it gets, anyone can make literally any claim through its lens and its equally valid as a claim made by a professional evolutionary psychologist. Not to mention they are applying human moral sentiments to an unsentient organic force, may as well say that jumping off a building is objectively a good thing because gravity does all the work.

I lol'd.

Attached: worry_2.jpg (193x245, 10K)

lmao
lol based
Based Slavs

youtu.be/X6i6UvbsXvM

hello based and redpilled department?

Attached: 49787367_730730407310894_8479543925219000320_n.jpg (938x960, 96K)

>named roger scruton
>known for scrutinizing things
>has probably rogered someone at least once

Attached: 1554508479001.png (619x594, 373K)

>especially Brutalism
Deep fucking sigh. What is it with 4channers and their moronic appreciation of Brutalism... Do you also like suburban strip malls and gas stations?

Scruton the Scrotum

Not him, but brutalism is created with a much greater deal of aesthetic and social awareness than malls and gas stations - maybe misguided, but it is there, present and visible.

Attached: 1428654690601.jpg (1600x1311, 516K)

too bad about those traffic lights

>deep fucking sigh
i dont have a picture of the reddit logo saved, but just imagine that i posted it

And yet despite that aesthetic and social awareness brutalist buildings are even greater eyesores than the purely functional malls and gas stations.

this except painted bright primary colours

That's beside my point but fair enough. It's a matter of taste.

BASED

venus of galgenberg giving us an aryan salute

so fat acceptance is on the right side of history?

fat bitches were right all along

I wouldn't see the bigger ones as an aesthetic ideal, they are a glorification of fertility. I imagine people put them in their huts or whatever when they had trouble getting pregnant.

>hon hon le venus de splooge
fuck off france, really?