pipemakersforum.com

LOL!

That stem is just right Dan...

Let's remember, that a commenting on things as athetics are 100% subjective, not to be confused with comments concerning things like gaps between stummel and stem, centering of draft hole, thickness of the bit, etc.

"the stem is too long" is like saying "I don't like that color" IMHO...

Of course, I get paid to point out others design mistakes, so maybe I'm bias.

To make a new topic of a comment in another thread, I'd like to rehash a fun and difficult topic.

I do not subscribe to the notion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or that, "...aesthetics are 100% subjective". (I know I am in the minority on this.) Certainly we all have different tastes, but "liking" something is not the same thing as it being beautiful. I think we say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then behave in a different way. How the heck can we make any aesthetic comments on pipes if there is not some sense of "right" to attempt to achieve? Certainly this "right" can come with variety -- a woman and landscape can both be beautiful, but they don't look the same! There is something that distiguishes beautiful from plain and plain from ugly. There are priniciples that are involved in aesthetics that are not arbitrary -- they are variable -- but not arbitrary. Symmetry, harmony, protortion, the golden ratio, these are words and ideas that have a lot to do with aesthetics.

Of course there is not necessarily a perfect pipe, or more specifically a perfect blowfish or apple, but there are superior bowfish and apples. This could not be so if aesthetics were abitrary. These superior pipes are harmonized (and probably several other things) in ways that are beautiful. There can be many aesthetically good blowfish, in the same way that many landsacape are beautiful yet are different from one another, but that does not make ALL blowfish aesthetically good.

Yet we say that isn't so when we say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We are effectively saying all blowfish ARE equally aesthetically good, or at least have the potential to be. All any pipe needs to be beautiful is that one person to say so about it. Balderdash I say! Not all pipes are beautiful. In fact, I'd say very FEW pipes are beautiful. Heck, maybe NO pipe is beautiful, but some are much closer than others.

If we'll be honest, we don't behave as if beauty is arbitrary and in the eye of the beholder. When I have had pipemakers critique my work for my developmental benefit, phrases are regularly used like, "That's wrong," "This should be shorter," "This should be cut down more." The premise is that there is a "right" or at least some right principles to be pursued. I assert that that pursuit is one of the major aspects of the joy of pipe making.

FWIW, the why's and wherefore's of my comments are based upon my Theistic worldview. I assert that, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," is simply the same as the statement, "There are no absolutes," applied to the specific realm of aesthics. I reject the notion of no absolutes generally, and in the realm aesthetics specifically. I believe there are absolute principles for beauty just as I believe there are absolute truths.

I know not all of you share my worldview, nor my view on aesthetics, but I find this perhaps the most intriguing conversation in pipe-dom. Why is one pipe better than another? Why do I find a certain pipes rediculus, yet some will regularly pay $1000 for them? How can ANY pipe command $1000 for that matter? Why do some pipes look "wrong?" How is the Danish style observable and different from the Italian? Why does Crosby sell panties with his likeness on them? Ah, the mysteries!

Isn't this hobby fun?

Tyler

Tyler,

I had no idea that he sold panties! What an odd thing to find out about our brother...

Anyway, I've been thinking about some words from a fairly pompous pipester, who has adamantly refused to accept the freehand shapes. Classic shapes are the only ones that can be regarded as "beautiful". I responded with a sound "poppycock!". I find all finely made pipes to be wonderful sights to behold, yea verily.

On the other hand, since the classic shapes are fairly standard, a pompous person might find comfort in the "predictability" of those shapes. I find John R.'s smokable art to be a some of the most beautiful pieces I've seen. The Japanese freehands, art as well, most beautiful. Does that make me an anarchist?

--Michael

p.s. thanks for the thread

I don't think it is a matter of free hand or classic at all. It is the balance, harmony, proportion, shape, etc. of either type. There are ugly classicly shaped pipes, and there are ugly freehands, and vice versa. I would not accept that a category of pipes was inherrently impossible as a medium for beauty.

Tyler

Now this looks like a thread for me…

As for the personal taste:
There is some subjective perception of aesthetics in every one of us. As a matter of fact, the variation curve of this perception from a given peak of "oh my god, this is a breathtaking experience of proportion in harmony" towards the ends of "I wish I was born blind…" will be shaped like every other of those gaussian bell curves showing similar statistic distribution. There will be lot of folks liking (to state it extra mild…) some aesthetic principle and it's close variations. And there are little of those folks seeking for some of the freaky things on the outer edges of that curve. I remember I was involved in some discussion of a pipe being "kinky" somewhere on this board…
The reasons for this being so are not to unidimensional. There is an influence of fashion. Not that fashion changing four or five times within a generation, but with some lower frequency. Many people tend to a certain proportion, because they grew up with it and never saw anything else. This seems natural, but we must be aware, that our perception becomes more and more prone to manipulation due to the rising influence of visual media being abused by the manufacturers of things they want us to find aesthetic. Believe me, I do work in that business…
Another reason for that may already have been mentioned by Tyler, if I got him right. Some time ago I read quite a lot about socalled "cosmic" principles of aesthetics found so ubiquituous in so many fields of the universe. Harmonic proportions and divisions can be found astonishingly often. Be it in the dimensions of a flower's bud, in acoustic/tonal harmony, in the revolving of the planets or in the visualization of the mandelbrot equations.
I tend not to believe too much of that, since I do know, if you manage some clever rounding of the figures, it's not only the cheops pyramid that has those cosmic proportions, but you can find it in a common public phone booth let's say in Berlin, too.
Though there still are some very interesting coincidences left. Me being an agnostic mind (sorry, Tyler), I am far from deducting a superior designer from the fact that nature has brought up so many perfectly aesthetic things. If I am in a very realistic mood, I think, that mankind has developped from unconsciousness to the Homo spaiens within these proportions, so we must have a feeling for these. In a more mellow mood, I simply bow my back in front of natures multitude and sense of aesthetics. Yes, I do believe there are some underlying unalienable principles of beauty.
But Tyler, you say there are principles of truth. That confuses me. For me, truth is a principle with only one dimension. In daily life there is a lot between the truth and a lie. Many people tend to call the half way from white to black still as some sort of truth. I don't think so. The only thing necessary for truth being a monodimensional point (all you astrophysics, march in and tell us about singularities…) is that truth has a given moment. We all know the feeling of growing older and the perception that that what seems true to us changes more or less with time passing by. This reminds me of that Heisenberg uncertainty principle (you can't determine an elementary particle's position and momentum at the same time) Though this perception of what seems true to ourselves is not necessarily the same as some underlying truth. If our perception for truth changes, does this mean, we are on a way to that underlying truth?

Uhm, kinda got taken away.
I did not want to kick off some philosophical/religious thing. It's easy to get strung up in these things, since it's so easy to step on someone's feet.

Yes there are absolute aesthetics. But since even those are born from the endless universe still expanding (panta rhei – Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει), nature must be anarchic to some extent, or otherwise nothing would have ever come out of that darkness…

Okay, let me preface: I'm a complete newbie and I've never made a pipe. Soon.... very soon.

However, I do 'aesthetics' for a living, being a graphic designer/illustrator/art director.

I'm at work and I really can't go into too much philosophical depth here, so I'm going to be as short as possible - don't take that to mean that the depth isn't there or I'm trying to be authoritative or hyper-simplistic, just that I can't in good conscience take the time to explain myself thoroughly. But I'll try in the time I have.

First off: beauty is a word that has been bastardized by a society bent on relativism. I'm going to treat it here like it's an extreme, not that it's synonymous with 'nice' or 'attractive'. Calling something beautiful to me is saying that it's extremely harmonious and creates some kind of involuntary heartfelt response - like bursting into tears over a piece of music or becoming very quiet after seeing a particularly breathtaking piece of art or just understanding and appreciating that something is visually balanced.

So, that said, aesthetics are not binary... they are points or ranges along a continuum. What I've found is that there are some principles (like the Golden Mean) that are found quite widely in nature and in things that are 'considered beautiful'. There's a sense of proportion in nature that is relatively consistent, and principles in art and composition that help to create visual harmony and balance.

More nebulous than that, though, are issues of style. You like a Dublin, I like a squat bent bulldog, my friend Arthur likes crazy Danish freehands with loads of plateau. All these pipes may subscribe to the same principles of Beauty, but they look different and affect us differently. I like Magritte, you like Cezanne, Billy down the street likes (ack) Thomas Kinkade.

Part of beauty is objective: things not created by man have a peculiar set of proportions. Either because we've been created to enjoy those proportions, or because we've grown up around them and thus appreciate them, or because we're taught to appreciate them, we can likely agree that they are beautiful. To say that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is completely true is silly, because there's just far too much evidence that certain proportions, compositions and relationships just work. If all beauty was truly subjective there would be far less agreement over what is beautiful.

But part of beauty is also subjective: things remind us of things. Each of us has a particular sense of style. Fashion works in cycles. So to say that beauty is absolute is also silly, because our response to beauty is colored by our memories, our education, our mood... and we can have very personal, significant emotional responses to things that do not affect others in the same way.

As with most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. If beauty is completely subjective, then any idiot should be able to make a living doing art. If it's completely objective, then art is just engineering. It's clear to me that good art has an aspect of personality and an aspect of principle.

So, in a nutshell, I agree strongly with both Tyler and Alex. One thing I will say though is that I don't believe that it's a coincidence that there may be a phone booth in Berlin that has the same 'cosmic' proportions of things in nature (rounded though they may be). That just proves to me that whoever designed that phone booth was paying attention to beauty.

As far as truth goes, I believe that there is Absolute Truth, but I also believe that there are contextual or systemic truths - in other words, there are situations where Reality will define your perception, and some in which your perception will define your reality. Again, it's not a binary thing, it's a matter of looking at context. Not either/or: both/and.

"When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty... but when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong." - R. Buckminster Fuller

Very interesting discussion, Tyler (and all ). Beauty and aesthetics are subjective impressions at all, I think - but not at 100 %!

Let's stay by the pipes: "Good" briar, "nice" grain, "harmonik" shape and "elegant" lines, "nice" stemwork - all subjective impressions in the eyes of the beholder, arn't they?

But in my mind this subjective attributes are all depending on a very well done work of the producer. (Tyler, of course that can't be true for your example of beautiful wemon in any case... )

I just had the luck to meet Rainer Barbi at a German pipeshow and could talk with him about pipemaking! I heard, and hopefully learned, a lot about how to make a "good" pipe, especially about "right" stemwork.

If you've a look at Rainer's pipes (of course also at the pipes of a lot of other pipemakers too) you'll see an acribic interpretation of fine pipeart! All things seem to match perfectly!

But what is perfect? I think it's the product of many years where we imagine how it should look perfect in comparison to what our brain remembers from a lot of seen products (pipes)!

So the early pipes are not beautiful in our eyes - but at their time to be new, the people thought they were - they had not seen any "better" pipes so far! All the great masters who developed and improved the "modern" pipes with the years had their impressions how they could make it better and that is one point, why we've an archetype from a "good" pipe.

But that resulted at last with the ability of the pipemaker to create "nice" shapes or stems or finishes.

So the point I want to get to is, that a talented pipemaker will always be able to create a pipe which will be aesthetic and beautiful in the eyes of the beholder! Rainer's stemwork is just - in my mind - an excellent example: Not only nice to look at, but also comfortable and absolutly functional!

So the conclusion of what I'll try to say is, that aesthetic and beauty of a pipe is mainly depending on (nearly) perfect work - mentioned as exact in execution and funktionallity... And at the end the attributes "beautyful" and "aesthetic" are not 100% subjective!

I hope I could explain my point of view so far...

But Tyler, you say there are principles of truth. That confuses me. For me, truth is a principle with only one dimension.

Mine was a confusing statement and doesn't really correlate with how I think about truth either. I agree with how you expressed it. I simply spoke innaccurately. I edited my post to be more clear.

To clarify a bit though, perception of truth and the truth are two very distinct things. Just because our perception changes doesn't mean a hoot about truth itself.

Tyler

Tyler wrote: How the heck can we make any aesthetic comments on pipes if there is not some sense of "right" to attempt to achieve? Certainly this "right" can come with variety -- Tyler

Questions If aesthetics aren't 100% subjective, who's idea of aesthetics do we need to follow? And in any form of art can there be such a thing as "right" and "wrong"? Isn't most of what we do an interpretation anyway? So wouldn't that throw out any notion that there is a "right" way to do a particular shape,stem,inlay,rustication etc? Isn't aesthetics dictated more by what the pipe buyer likes? Should we be concerned with aesthetics anyway? After all, what I find appealing may not appeal to anyone else. If you bring variation into the equation, you also have to add subjectivity. Because variation is subjective. So if "right" can come with variety, then it is also subjective and subject to interpretation, thus aesthetics are subjective.

Its easier for me just to do what I find pleasing and hope someone else will find it pleasing too! And I do not subscribe to any theory where there is one set of "rules" that must be followed to be aesthetically pleasing, because that takes the artistic nature out of it. One of the "worst" traps an artist can fall into is creating works of art with the sole intent of pleasing the masses. Results in blocks and burnout in relative short order. "To thine own self be true"

Had to be Tyler that started this discussion!!!

David

bvartist wrote:If aesthetics aren't 100% subjective, who's idea of aesthetics do we need to follow? And in any form of art can there be such a thing as "right" and "wrong"? Isn't most of what we do an interpretation anyway? So wouldn't that throw out any notion that there is a "right" way to do a particular shape,stem,inlay,rustication etc?

Try thinking about it like this: say you want to learn to play the drums. If you want to be a successful drummer, there are things you need to learn that are objective: technique, rhythm, dynamics, rudiments, etc. These things have been established over a long period of time, and while there's some flexibility in them (like whether you play overhand or underhand on your left hand), good drummers everywhere would say it's to your obvious benefit to learn those rudiments.

Now... once you've learned those rudiments, they give you the ability to have considerable freedom in how you play, because your technique isn't getting in the way. In a manner of speaking, you are giving yourself a toolbox full of high-quality, sharp tools.

Without those rudiments, you may or may not play in rhythm... you may or may not play at the same volume as the rest of the band... you may or may not sound like a complete hack. And your drumming may please you, but it's highly unlikely that it will please anyone else. If you don't learn those rudiments, your lack of technical skill will catch up with you, and while you might be a reasonably good artistic drummer (description coming up below), you will never be a rock legend (unless you join the Beatles, but that's another story).

But here's the rub: some of this ability comes naturally. Some people have a great natural aptitude for rhythm and dynamics, and can come up with beats that are fresh and cool, and play with a level of conviction that is powerful. So they might be good from a purely artistic standpoint. But again, if their technique is not up to par, sooner or later it will limit their art. And that might be OK, but it's unwise to count on it. You can only go so far with raw talent.

Better to work on your technique, establish an understanding of the rules and why they're there, and develop your own style from there. In fact, you'll probably find that your own style naturally develops as part of learning and practicing and working out the rules.

I believe it's dangerous to look at art as a big 'anything goes'. With all due respect, that leads to self-indulgent mediocrity, and an overvaluing of any effort, rather than a proper valuing and understanding of when you're successful. I'm not saying that art is inextricably tied to commerce, just that it's inextricably tied to the response of others. Art is bigger than you, and art that is done skillfully to communicate or interact with others is more valuable to me than art that is done only to amuse oneself. You are not the object of your art.

All this said, reading this forum can give the impression that art is purely subjective. There's no real communication of what the rules are or why one shape works better artistically than another. Many of us talk about it as if we all have the same foundation because for some of us those rules are deeply infused by years of practice. If you want to find out what the rules are and why, you will have to do some more reading. I'll see if I can find some books to recommend... I can think of one immediately but I will need to look it up.

I can't wait for ArtGuy to weigh in on this. He's gotta have a pretty defined opinion.

bvartist wrote:Its easier for me just to do what I find pleasing and hope someone else will find it pleasing too! And I do not subscribe to any theory where there is one set of "rules" that must be followed to be aesthetically pleasing, because that takes the artistic nature out of it. One of the "worst" traps an artist can fall into is creating works of art with the sole intent of pleasing the masses. Results in blocks and burnout in relative short order. "To thine own self be true"

Just had to touch on a few things here:

One, easier is almost never better. Just because it's easier to do what you find pleasing does not mean it's the most beneficial thing to do.

Two, working toward a 'set of rules' (that's actually misleading because they're not actually rules) does not necessarily remove the artistic nature - it gives you a framework in which to work that will almost always benefit the result.

Three, where are you coming from in establishing the 'worst' trap an artist can fall into? I'm not saying I disagree... that is indeed a trap because it results in second-guessing and will cause burnout, yes... however there are many worse things an artist can do - and one of them is to overvalue their own effort, and undervalue the opinion of their audience.

Four, what does it really mean to be true to yourself as an artist? Does it mean to trust your intuition even though that intuition may not be well-developed, or does it mean to work hard to improve your skills and creative vision, and learn from those who are better at their craft than you?

Not meaning to pick a fight ... just want to make sure you're really thinking this through.

Beauty is a cultual concept. Hence we see variations in what is beautiful in different cultures. And yet there may be some common aspects in each. And the more our sub-cultures interact, the more each with inherit attributes of the others. This is especially true in our age, where technology has given us doors into places where only a few hundred years ago were much more isolated.

It may be argued that some of these isolated spots still contain the universal aspects. And this may be true. I would argue that this is the case because each of us have in our genetic code a base human set of imperatives. These imperitives cause us to interact with the environment in certain ways. To behave in certain ways. These behaviors lead to similar basic beliefs and ideas, founding a very vague "Human Culture," that each and every man and woman born carries with them. It is in this foundational Human culture that we draw our ideas of universal beauty and truth from.

Its easier for me just to do what I find pleasing and hope someone else will find it pleasing too!

This is an excelent statement. In doing this, one tries to tap into the culturally accepted standards of beauty that are so deeply ingrained in each of us.

To say that 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is completely true is silly, because there's just far too much evidence that certain proportions, compositions and relationships just work. If all beauty was truly subjective there would be far less agreement over what is beautiful.

I would have to disagree to a point here. There are universal elements of beauty for a certain culture. Beauty and harmony are cultural phenominon. Take away the cutural overlay and you simply have objects that are neither beautiful not ugly.

Some might argue that this point isn't quite on point, in that some aspects of beauty cross cultures. I would answer that by saying not only are there cultures based on regions of the Earth, but that there is a culture of our planet. As the boundaries of a culture become more nebulous as you spread it to a wider and wider set of folks, the comonalities stand out all the more and at the same time become more general. Hence a preference for harmony and balance may be near universal. This is an expression of human nature and human culture. Not a universal principle that can be applied in all places known or unknown.

obie wrote:
Better to work on your technique, establish an understanding of the rules and why they're there, and develop your own style from there. In fact, you'll probably find that your own style naturally develops as part of learning and practicing and working out the rules.

AHHH don't you love philosophical discussions!!! What fun!!!

I may be taking "subjective" too literally, but in order for anything not to be subjective there has got to be a set of established rules. Anything outside the established rules is subjective. And if aesthetics aren't subjective then there can be no deviation from those rules.

For example:
Rules:
A straight Billiard that has a bowl height of x.xx inches and bowl diameter of x.xx inches must be x.xx inches long, the stem of the pipe must be the same length as the length of the bowl/shank and the shank must be .xx inches in diameter in order to be aesthetically pleasing. Any deviation from this would be subjective. Or more appropriately open to interpretation. And for aesthetics not to be subjective, any pipe not matching the set of rules would have to be considered not aesthetically pleasing. Or at the very least not aesthetically pleasing in reference to a straight billiard.

As far as I know there are no "rules" in pipe making. There are unstated norms about fit and finish. But no "rules" we must follow. Without rules everything is open to interpretation. And interpretation is subjective.

Three, where are you coming from in establishing the 'worst' trap an artist can fall into? I'm not saying I disagree... that is indeed a trap because it results in second-guessing and will cause burnout, yes... however there are many worse things an artist can do - and one of them is to overvalue their own effort, and undervalue the opinion of their audience.

While it is never good to undervalue the opinion of their audience(which is subjective by the way! ) For an artist to place highly the respect and opinion of his audience, he moves from being an artist to being a producer of paintings for monetary gain. There is an artist who stands behind a jet engine and throws buckets of paint into the jet wash and lets them fall where they may on a canvas. He sells his works for many thousand dollars. Technically speaking, is his art more aesthetically pleasing than an artist who spends considerable time on a decent work only to sell it for a few dollars? He has a wider audience acceptance, and thus more aesthetic appeal. (subjectively) Yet is he truly an artist? Or is he creating a painting he knows will sell for $10,000. Although audience acceptance does play a role in any artist's life, his art career will be much more fulfilling if he is creating art from his heart and soul rather than creating a piece strictly because he knows it will sell. Granted he may be less wealthy, but I guarantee he'll be more fulfilled.

Subjectivity has to play a role in all art, or there is no possible way to account for the changing tastes of the people who buy the pieces. What was popular several years ago may not be popular now. Did the rules change? How could they when there aren't any rules!

And again, if aesthetics aren't subjective and varied from person to person, who sets the "rules" of what is aesthetically pleasing for a pipe?(actually the people who buy the pipes set the "rules" and their buying habits are subjective to their personal likes and dislikes) Does that mean that if I choose to make my pipes differently than any of the "established" pipe makers there is no way my pipes could ever be aesthetically pleasing?

Ohhh, too much thinkin' for this poor hillbilly! I think I'll go sand some briar for a while!

David

Nobody's saying aesthetics aren't subjective - what I'm saying is that they're neither completely subjective nor completely objective.

And rather than rules, I would say that there are some guiding principles that are helpful in establishing flow and harmony.

Nick wrote:Some might argue that this point isn't quite on point, in that some aspects of beauty cross cultures. I would answer that by saying not only are there cultures based on regions of the Earth, but that there is a culture of our planet. As the boundaries of a culture become more nebulous as you spread it to a wider and wider set of folks, the comonalities stand out all the more and at the same time become more general. Hence a preference for harmony and balance may be near universal. This is an expression of human nature and human culture. Not a universal principle that can be applied in all places known or unknown.

I agree with you in principle, however when you take an argument out that far it causes it to lose all practical application. I don't care what aliens find beautiful... however when I'm producing artwork of one form or another I need to consider factors beyond my own tastes... that is, if I'm intending for that artwork to be significant to anyone besides me.

Here's a wrench for this thing: I would posit that consistent subjective responses can become an objective principle. In other words, if a certain group of people consistently respond to certain proportions, etc. in a certain way, then that generates a certain principle. The aesthetic principles that some of us subscribe to started life as subjective theories that were researched and developed over a long period of time, and found to be universal enough to become objective - at least to a large segment of the population.

Guys, aesthetic principles don't exist to take the fun out of it - what the purpose is, is to keep us from having to re-invent the wheel anytime we produce something, and make our visualization more efficient. If we have an understanding of things that will contribute to a better final product, we will produce better work in a shorter time. Bucking that concept just because we're anti-establishment is just setting ourselves up for a more painful journey to beauty.

Guys, I still need to know these rules before the aesthetics police come and shut down my pipe making!!

That's right David. My purpose here is to weed out the independent thinkers, and now I know where you live and I'm coming for you. :naughty:

Here's one of those books I was talking about. This is a great read with lots of examples and isn't too heady:
http://www.amazon.com/Geometry-Design-S ... 1568982496

This is a very interesting discussion. Now I am young and foolish but I see certain ideas that are distinct (at least in my mind) seemingly blurring together in this discussion. I see beauty and aesthetically pleasing as two very different things. I agree that beauty should create an emotional response but I've also seen beauty that doesn't. I can appreciate it's beauty but I don't like it at all. I prefer Beethoven to Bach. I can see the beauty in them both but one is more pleasing to me than the other. There are definitely pipes that I have seen that are beautiful but they do not please me. Maybe I am being too picky about the terms but it seems to me that where beauty is, I find, borders on absolute and aesthetics (unless I am completely wrong about this whole thing) being much more subjective. I am not the biggest fan of modern art (especially outdoor sculptures). I don't "get it" most of the time and so I don't generally like them, post-modern art without a point, is in my mind pointless. I can still see the beauty in them, however. I believe that art, even the art of pipe-sculpting, is to communicate a message and transmit a bit of who we are as individuals into the pipe itself. That is going to be totally sujective and individual. There remains beauty throughout all of these different manifestations of aesthetics.

I do aggree with Nick, however, that beauty is culturally bound. I have heard recordings of music sung in Papua New Guinea which, to my western ears, carries no harmony or melody or key structure and yet has an overwhelming emotion to it, and depth, based on layered rhythms and beats. If at first the sound of this music is abrassive to my cultural understanding I will obviously not like it but once I begin to understand the cultural context to the music (that it is focussed on meter and not melody) than I can begin to appreciate the beauty of it even though i don't "like it." It is true that stripping away the cultural backdrop would void any interpretation of art, but that is impossible to do. There must be a world culture that is universal that helps us to appreciate beauty in those things we do not "like."

My degree is in linguistics and if you hear a collection of different languages they appear, on the surface to be completely different. There are different morphemes and phonemes, different word orders, different understandings of syntax, they seem completely unrelated. However, once those things are properly analyzed there is very rarely a time that a certain set of rules does not exist in any other language. All language, eventually, boils down to a shifting of similar rules with different lexicons. The underlying rules are the same, even though the surface form is completely different.

This being said I feel that though we must, as businessmen to a degree, be aware of what is aesthetically pleasing to our audience that does not mean that simply because it is not it is devoid of beauty. Although this could be passed off as simply an overflow of my theistic understanding of universal absolutes I see evidence that the world is made of underlying curents in culture and understanding that are simply under the surface.

Sorry if this is incredibly long, confusing, or nonsensical.

Josh

obie wrote:That's right David. My purpose here is to weed out the independent thinkers, and now I know where you live and I'm coming for you. :naughty:

Just make sure you read the sign on the gate before entering!


I guess I'm either not reading these posts right, or not understanding the logic behind them. A lot of what I've read says to me "subjective" although the statements aren't meant that way.

There are priniciples that are involved in aesthetics that are not arbitrary -- they are variable

Variable? Or open to interpretation? Doesn't that mean they are subjective?

I believe there are absolute principles for beauty just as I believe there are absolute truths

What if your notion of beauty doesn't coincide with my notion of beauty? Does a woman have to have perfect porportions, a perfect figure and a perfect face to be beautiful? Or isn't there beauty in individuality? What if what I find beautiful doesn't fit within your perceived ideas for the absolute principles. Doesn't that make it subjective?

Certainly we all have different tastes, but "liking" something is not the same thing as it being beautiful.

OK. so who or what sets the standard of what is beautiful and what isn't beautiful? And if the standard isn't absolute, the isn't that subjective? Who sets the standard for what a pipe should look like? And who decided who should set the standard for what a pipe looks like?

Isn't this hobby fun?

It was! Until now I discover I'm apparently doing something wrong! And I still don't know what I'm doing wrong! To be absolute there have to be some absolute rules, and so far I haven't seen any!

the golden ratio

???????????????????????????????


VERY CONFUSED NOW!

David

Um, are you serious?

obie wrote:Um, are you serious?

About????