it is an entire class of qualifiers, related to surface insofar as they “do not heavily influence underlying form or substance”. but I say they might affect perception thoseof.
can be applied metaphorically and can be applied literally (identify the delimitation)
To say that something can be cleaned implies that there is something underlying that is worthy of cleaning.
e.g. “messy” is not always a negative trait, it is first and foremost qualitiative
these qualities are most often discussed in everyday settings (though they do exist in more formal art settings)
one of the main functions of cleaning is the revelation of underlying form or structure
why not just say that some aesthetic qualities are found primarily in art, and others primarily in everyday life?
this might be because the ESAQ are rather rudimentary, rather than refined
aesthetic concepts are (according to Sibley): - often based on, or appeal to, non-aesthetic concepts - perceptual - determined by taste pereceptiveness - not conditions not rule-governed
the author then goes on to prove that each of the ESAQ fit the above. hence they are aesthetic qualities indeed.
in cleanness, one can appreciate the clean result, but also the process of cleaning
then he proves that ESAQ are also aesthetic by fititng it into Beardsley’s symptoms of the aesthetic (object directedness, felt freedom, etc.)
and then finally goodman, focusing on exemplification
(exemplification is possession + reference)
his main point is that cleanliness exemplifies, and i would add that it does so even further when it is coupled with an actual language of art.
but how precisely? the configuration of discreete symbol systems can be so arranged as to reveal structure in a somewhat first-level, obvious way
and finally he makes the point of having these ESAQ developed at a beginner-level, and might afterwards develop into expert-level