I like the way this is going. It seems to boil down to the issue of redundancy. The stealth plane was not designed to simply get beyond the usual aircraft design but to elude radar deterction. The various angles, etc., are there to confuse radar. Bit I agree that the new function (to elude radar) also had to result in a plane that would fly well. So the old paradigm had to be stretched to meet a new, additional puropse. This is the idea of redundancy faced with new purposes. One could say something similoar about the Gothic Cathedrals. The new purpose was to enable light to serve a greater, more powerful symbolic function in religion. We need to remember that medevial thinkers thought light was created by an invisible force striking an object which then emited light. Thus the light coming through the stained glass was for them actually created by the glass images and thus filled with the sanctified symbolism. It was a holy light flooding the interior. So the cathedral design had to accomodate that. Thus the rising walls, the pointed arch (to better direct downward weight) the flying arches, etc. This is analogous to the stealth plane problem. A further metaphor is that the "disappearance" of the cathredral walls unified worldly light and holy light and became a symbol of the growing fusion of daily life and spiritual life in the emerging renaissance in Europe. I don't know what the greater symbolism of the stealth bomber is unless it signifies the growing modern panic that doom can/will come at any time without warning.
I suppose Michael's idea is the "necessity is the mother of invention" concept plus the recognition that redundancy is to be avoided. Toss in the very human desire for novelty (which can be seen as a symbolic, or metaphorical procreation). We create for the fun of it as much as for the need meet a new purpose and to avoid the stasis of redundancy in the midst of continual change and surprise. At any rate I like Michael's notion to relocate aesthetics from reception to production. More? WC --- On Wed, 12/24/08, Michael Brady <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> > Subject: Aesthetics as a technique of knowing > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, December 24, 2008, 9:00 AM > The word "aesthetics" is very often used to > designate a philosophical > description of formal properties in various objects in the > world. > Maybe we've been looking at it wrong. Perhaps > aesthetics accomplishes > something different. > > Bear with me on this, because it came to me a short time > ago and I > haven't worked it through entirely. (And I haven't > read much in the > area of aesthetics, much less "aesthetic > cognition," in a while.) > > IF the human brain is particularly adept at pattern > recognition, as > many people assert; and > IF speech, image recognition (especially facial), bilateral > dexterity, > and other skills are especially crucial to humans; and > IF artifacts of many kinds are the hallmark of human > activity; > > THEN the ability to discriminate among different patterns, > different > sounds, and different memories in order to choose one or > more > individual instances may have been a valuable skill and may > have > arisen through evolutionary forces. More than that, humans > may have > developed an "aesthetic" sense, not as a way to > appreciate artifacts, > but as a way to produce them. An "aesthetic" > sense may have been used > as a cognitive tool or technique of a practical nature, as > much as of > a disinterested or speculative nature. > > Thus, "aesthetics" as a cognitive tool would > contribute to analytic > thinking about the sensory appearance (or sound, or taste, > etc.) of a > thing. Our "aesthetic" vocabulary includes words > that refer to sensory > phenomena (colors, textures, tastes, sounds) and to the > relationships > between them (color and sound harmonies) or particular > qualities > (loudness or softness, pitch, tartness, granularity). > > But as happens, sometimes the paradigm reaches a limit and, > in order > to accomplish something more, the paradigm must be > abandoned or > broken. I'm thinking here of the Stealth Fighter, which > appears so > different from every other airplane up to its invention. > Not merely > different (and not merely non-airworthy, which it certainly > seems from > outward appearances), but unattractive. It doesn't look > like an > airplane, much less the sleek, impressive, and powerful > predecessors > that formed our notions of beautiful and admirable in > aircraft. The > Stealth Fighter redefined aerodynamic beauty, or at least > expanded its > definition--very much like how modern music (e.g., jazz) or > painting > (e.g., abstract Surrealism) moved the boundaries in their > fields. > > > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [email protected]
