From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7 / Vital (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Archive up to 2011

Incorrect Style[edit]

This article is written in a style that is neither encyclopedic or consistent with Wikipedia's style of articles. Questions are used too frequently throughout the text, and at some points, the articles starts to should like a thesis paper (issues with style are more apparent because there are also fluctuations, which can be quite jarring to the reader). Especially see sections with interrogative titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Re recent editing[edit]

Aesthetic Realism [] is not a religious organization but a philosophy. It is based on principles, a key one of which is "All beauty is a making one of opposites, and the making one of opposites is what we are going after in ourselves."

The Terrain Gallery in SoHo, NYC, founded in 1955, has run continuously since that date. It is based on a landmark investigation about the nature of beauty by Eli Siegel, founder of Aesthetic Realism, "Is Beauty the Making One of Opposites?" Its current exhibition, titled "Surface to Begin With," features works by, among others,Robert Blackburn, Harold Krisel, and Ken Kimmelman.

The first sentence of this Wikipedia entry states that aesthetics "is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste, and with the creation and appreciation of beauty." So it is right for Aesthetic Realism to be here. Nathan43 (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Dutton and Aesthetic Universals[edit]

This section needs major revision since it cites a summary of universals from Steven Pinker, rather than Dutton's own work, The Art Instinct. In that book he describes a list of cluster criteria (and expands them to 12). None are necessary or sufficient characteristics of art, but the more an artifact has, the better it fits into the category. This covers the majority of things called art without becoming bogged down in accounting for the edge cases, such as Duchamp.

The section also needs to include other authors that have similar lists.FigureArtist (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The "nine great civilizations"[edit]

Rome should not be included in this list, as it is not unique, for its culture is very derivative of that of Greece. There are other significant civilizations that were far more unique than Rome: for example, the Andean Chavin culture. The inclusion of Rome seems eurocentric, when so few civilizations are mentioned from the Americas, and none are mentioned from sub-Saharan Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Experimental aesthetics[edit]

It isn't clear why 'experimental aesthetics' suddenly appears in the sub-category 'post-modern aesthetics', it either needs to be stated why or removed or made in a different place on this page (another sub head 'experimental aesthetics' could include the Graz school and Meinong e.g.).

Plus, a fair amount of the material seems like original research amd non neutral opinion.

Ninjabeard (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


Virtually the whole page is truly awful. I didn't stop cringing. Amateurish (although that denigrates amateurs), frequently ungrammatical, just embarrassingly bad. Most of it reads like a first-week uni student's paper. Or high school. Is this the best that we can do?! Geez. I just deleted a sentence/paragraph on 'pneumaist' aesthetics that seemed a obscure joke. Who knows. A total shambles. Can someone tag the page with something indicating that it desperately needs work? Yes, it is that bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Major restructuring needed[edit]

In my opinion, the current structure of the article is unnecessarily confusing and provokes quite a few duplicates and incongruent statements. My suggestion would be the following structure:

  • Etymology
  • Aesthetics in ancient Greece
  • Aesthetics in Western medieval aesthetics
  • Post-renaissance aesthetics
    • Beauty in post-renaissance aesthetics
    • Other aesthetic judgments in post-renaissance aesthetics
  • New criticism
  • Post-modern aesthetics
    • Beauty in post-modern aesthetics
    • Art in post-modern aesthetics
    • Aesthetics and psychoanalysis
  • Recent aesthetics
    • Aesthetics in recent philosophy
      • Beauty in recent aesthetics
      • Other aesthetic judgments in recent philosophy
      • Art in recent aesthetics
      • Aesthetic universals
    • Aesthetics and science
      • Experimental aesthetics
      • Computational inference of aesthetics
      • Evolutionary Aesthetics
  • Aesthetics in non-Western cultures
    • Indian Aesthetics
    • Chinese Aesthetics
    • African Aesthetics
    • Arab Aesthetics

This would mainly give a chronological overview of recurring topics in aesthetics. I also think that the content of the article so far would mostly be retained with the exception of statements that have no reference, because they cannot be sorted into one of these chronological categories. (This is a major advantage of re-ordering, in my opinion) Further sub-headings might be necessary.

I am very willing to do such a major re-organisation myself. However, I have to note that I am no philosopher by training, but a psychologist; however, my research is focused on aesthetic experiences and therefore I would consider myself to have a fair understanding of the topic; I have also read a fair amount of philosophical books, essays and articles on aesthetics. Nonetheless, I would be very grateful for an opinion on the soundness of the structure outlined above and constructive criticism.

AeAnBr (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be really great to have most of that as History of aesthetics, and summarized here. The current History of aesthetics before the 20th century is I think almost pure EB 1911. Maybe the middle bit here. The present article is certainly a complete mess. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree; this would make Aesthetics more readable and very much improve History of aesthetics before the 20th century. This would shorten the above list to:
  • Etymology
  • Aesthetics before the 20th Century (linking to main article)
  • New criticism
etc. as above
AeAnBr (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, best of luck. I've archived up to 2011 to clear the decks here. Frankly I don't think many watch this page, so you probably have a pretty free hand. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this article - Don't try throwing out the baby for the bathwater. Post-modern aesthetics is no replacement for what went before - but essentially posits new hypotheses. Chinese aesthetics, Indian aesthetics, Arab aesthetics, African aesthetics, Aesthetics in non-Western cultures all require their own articles as do many of the proposed changes above...Modernist (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it cannot be the aim of an article so general as this one to explain every hypothesis in details, this is very correct and the reason why I think that it makes sense to move a lot of content to Aesthetics before the 20th Century, because this is already a separate article. So is experimental aesthetics. I would be glad to see a lot of this "head" article to be replaced by short summaries and links to main articles. AeAnBr (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup needed: suggestions[edit]

This article needs a cleanup, including, but not limited to:

I'll try to improve it based on WP:STYLE and WP policy in general. --Cornellier (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I recommend trying a bit harder to communicate with possibly interested editors before simply deleting 85% of the article content. This is highly problematic.  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aesthetics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)