he seems to be a big shot, and most of this should be used in [[understanding_beauty]]
sir henry wotton on architecture: “commodity, firmness and delight”, which could also be linked to programming.
taking a point of view breaks up arguments. it’s no longer about being good, but about being “good of a kind”.
To take an aesthetic point of view with regard to X, is to take an interest in whatever aesthetic value X may possess, or is obtainable by means of X
searching aesthetic and realizing it
what are the aesthetic “rules of relevance”? Those implicitly or explicitly followed by people.
aesthetic value is the ability to provide aesthetic gratification (I would disagree, thinking that aesthetics can be combined with other fields, and it’s not so isolated. aesthetics provide cognitive stimulation, is better than, but related to gratification). but the interesting question is that of the type of aesthetic gratification, as opposed to other types (emotion, cognition, motion).
Gratification is aesthetic when it is primarily obtained primarily from attention to the formal unity and/or the intensity of regional quality.
he sees aesthetic value as the one that is obtained under “optimal circumstances”. this is nice, but unrealistic. indeed, i’d prefer looking at it under “realistic” circumstances—cf. the “rules of relevance”
always adopting an aesthetic point of view might be detracting to other points of view, more important (e.g. engineering, soundness, etc.)
the objects of aesthetic interest—such as harmonious design, good proportions, or intense expressiveness—are not drugs, but part of the breadth of life (p. 34)
in “the spiteful sun” spiteful has a designative role. a metaphor gives two ideas instead of one (john crow ransom, p.263), which adds a “local texture of irrelevance”
iconic theories of metaphor and object-comparison theories of metaphor both insert a foreign component in the sentence/meaning, and the inherent semantic richness of the icon/the object might corrupt the overall meaning of the metaphor.
his verbal theory, on the opposite, focuses on internal meaning (and the internal tension inherent). this tension happens with the “central” meaning of the subject, and therefore shifts attention to the “peripheral” meaning (highlight of connotation, rather than designation)
verbal-opposition theory implies levels of complexity: simple/banal metaphor vs. rich/novel/puzzling-at-first metaphor (this complexity is based on the non-attributes that a metaphor implies: “the unruly sun” != “the faithful sun”, “the punctual sun”)
the metaphor transforms a property into a sense
three stages in the metamorphosis of verbal meaning:
metaphors can have “degrees of meaning”
ref: e.h. gombrich - schemata
Dewey: aesthetic experiences have an unusually high degree of unity in the dimension of completeness.
He broadens the concept, turning to “the aesthetic in experience”, which, among others, is an enjoyable one.
Nonetheless, he lists five criteria for the aesthetic character of an experience:
does code push the aesthetic experience in different directions? the spatio-semantic pattern?