But is this question really "a problem in aesthetics" (as Kate asserted yesterday) any more than "intelligent design" is a problem in biology?
Biologists are never going to convince creationists about the validity of evolution, and they don't need to. And creationists don't need to concern themselves with biology. Their concerns belong in a church, not a research facility. Just as those who dispute the physical basis of beauty should be studying history or psychology or sociology or cognitive science instead of aesthetics. In Chapter 2 of "The Art Instinct" Dutton retraced the history of aesthetics from Aristotle to Kant, demonstrating that they all recognized the existence of the beautiful object or well-written tragedy, and that recognition continued into the 20th C. up until post-modernism, where objects no longer have qualities, they only have interpretations. But even our resident post-modernists believe that Mando is simply wrong when he denies the aesthetic quality of Manet's last painting. As you might recall, Wiliam's first reaction to Mando's apostasy was to suggest that after Mando had read the relevant literature (i.e. the interpretations) he would doubtless change his mind. But eventually, when it became clear that regardless of interpretations, Mando simply felt "Manet had lost it" , William could only deride Mando's response as "truly funny". So I have no doubt that aesthetics will survive post-modernist skepticism, even as it survived the extreme doctrines of formalism. It will just take people who are more interested in art than in following intellectual fashion. ____________________________________________________________ Weight Loss Program Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=ynk7g1GrsKA4oElOtYoKLAAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=
