|WikiProject University of Oxford||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
==Irrationalism and Aestheticism==
===Dead or Alive?===
If you look at the Wikipedia definition of 'irrational' you will find it includes 'one who gets upset about things yet to come'.
But how can it be 'irrational' to fear, for example, the effects of global warming, when we agree it will come inevitably?
Does this fear then not drive us to seek solutions? It's working towards some sort of belief that we can do better Which is not irrational.
Aestheticism on the other hand seems to seek no other responsibility Than to indulge in form without meaning.
Sinuslight 14:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC) This isn't the place to debate global warming, or about the responsibility of the aesthete. It's not even in the correct place on the page. I suggest deleting the quite vague and pov section on aestheticism and irrationalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the idea that the article on "humanistic aestheticism" should be merged with the article on "aestheticism" because it is, in my opinion, a subset of aestheticism. Since it is a very specific/obscure "movement," the article may not be discovered by the average browser of articles on aesthetics. At least a link below should be provided to "humanistic aestheticism" from the "aestheticism" article so that one doesn't miss out on this highly interesting information.
I'm not sure about saying that Aestheticism represents the same tendencies as Symbolism. I mean to say, symbolists thought art should capture the truth in life, whereas aesthetes felt the opposite way. I don't think it's fair to just say they represent the same tendencies and leave it at that when they're rather opposite. Bertieismyho 17:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I added a link to Matthew Elliot. It turns out he's a batsman. Is that the correct Matthew Elliot? Should it be Matt Elliott (musician)? The article suggests (in my opinion) there's a revival. Is that really so? Blue Henk 07:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The article Aesthetic Movement should be kept as a separate article. The term has signifigance both in decorative arts, and as a part of a larger arts and philosphical movement. In the decorative arts the term encompasses a good portion of post 1875 furniture and interiors, and is a very widely used term.CApitol3 12:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with this year-old comment. The Aesthetic Movement in 19th century Britain deserves treatment separately from Aesthetics as a study. - PKM (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
L'art pour l'art
I actually think that the phrase was coined by Benjamin Constant (Leighton, 2007; ) but I'll say that the origin is debated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be a little strange to include Whistler in a list of painters that also includes Burne-Jones, Beardsley, and Rosetti. It is not, I hope, tendentious to say that as a painter of talent, technique, and vision he was way ahead of all of them. His survival, if not anointment, in the canon of great painters seems deserved and not much debated; few would argue the same for the others. His Peacock room in the Sackler Museum in Washington may have pleased Reginald Bunthorne no end, but then look at his Nocturnes, for example, and you see a painter whose belief is hardly l'art pour l'art. If the original author wishes to keep Whistler here, it seems a little explanation might be helpful.