Response to Katie Russell's post at 4:01am on 9/16/11

You raised good points on the integration of axiological and ontological impacts on aesthetics. Aesthetics, in my opinion, are important because they distinguish the value of art. If you think the "starving artists" are poor now, just imagine if any picture you took or any paintbrush-to-canvas creation could be considered museum-worthy works of art. I, being a musician, would be traumatized if any chord progression or combination of notes could be put on an album. You see, aesthetics, although subjective, work through us to value art and keep it dignified. There is no sense in seeking "higher powers" to help us make these distinctions, as some early philosophers believed. No, instead we must use our own senses to separate the good from the bad to keep the art world a more appreciable, respectable place. Raccoon feces, the example we cited in class, is not considered by most, if any, to be truly artistic in nature. Therefore, its aesthetic value is low and negligible. However, if aesthetics weren't in place or held little importance, then the museums would be filled with raccoon feces and other ambiguous displays. Aesthetics, then, serves as a judgmental tool to define art, and a tool to declare the value of art. This, in my opinion, is the importance of aesthetics.

Perhaps a suitable question to pose after this is; are aesthetics truly subjective, as I believe, or are they objective, such as in the example of being determined by a higher power for the masses? Remember to support answers with proof as I have.