Where do I start if I want to read about aesthetics?
I feel like other branches of philosophy have pretty good road maps for getting into, but I don't know about this one.
>>7720657
A e s t h e t i c s ?
Nipple leash
Kant, Adorno, Benjamin, Heidegger
Plotinus, though not relevant anymore, also tackles aesthetics in a very interesting way IMO
>>7720657
Check out Laocoon: An Essay on the Limits of Painting and Poetry by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing. I don't know much about english translations but it was a good text in my native language.
One of the first texts that tries to define art and poetry in a philosophical way. It has been some time since I read it so I honestly don't remember much of it.
Ferdydurke
>>7720773
I've read it and what does this have to do with aesthetics?
>>7720670
I don't get this meme.
>>7720657
>Start with the greeks
This is a meme for a reason. Start with Plato and Aristotle.
THE CENTAURESS HAS A FUCKING NIPPLE LEASH YOU GUYS LMAO. HOW DID THIS GO UNNOTICED
In Praise of Shadows is good entry.
Has anyone got Philosophies of Art and Beauty: Selected Readings in Aesthetics from Plato to Heidegger (edited by Hofstadter)?
>>7720899
Haven't read that one, but I have a similar book that was GOAT, so I was recommend OP some anthologies at first.
Once you're into modernism, I recommend you (in that order, more or less), Heidegger's Origin of the Work of Art, Benjamin, Adorno, Warburg, Flusser, Kosuth, Eco, Ranciére and (maybe) Badiou
im gonna masturbate to that horse
How did no one mention David Hume's On the Standard of Taste? It's a good essay you can read online for free.
Read all of his works.
>>7720899
Yes, I like it, I own it, kinda consult it every now and then but it's a well-put together anthology.
>15 replies
>no mention of Aristotle's Poetics
>probably the best entry point possibly ever in aesthetics
Aesthetics is the worst and pointless and downright idiotic part of philosophy.
>>7720657
Artists who are good critics, and critics who make it an art, are better at it than any of the philosophers. Oscar Wilde, Walter Pater, Longinus, William Hazlitt, Samuel Johnson, Goethe, Percy Shelly, Wallace Stevens, and the inevitable Harold Bloom. Even some who pitch their tents in the camp of journalism are worth reading when they touch on the subject of beauty and ugliness, like H. L. Mencken and Robert Hughes, who are seldom boring enough to be dead wrong. Generally speaking, the more a writer is like a poet rather than a philosopher the more he knows what he's talking about. Also, music is maddeningly difficult to think and write about objectively, because it's far too dear to whom it is dear, to sacrifice on the shrine of truth. There is a connoisseurship to it, and some recommendations are better than others, but no one ever really gets to the bottom of music in the aesthetic sense--the aesthete being to perception what the athlete is to movement. (It isn't possible to be superb at both, though it is possible to be superlatively mistaken about both, as in the case of poor Zyzz.)
>>7720657
Is no one going to talk about Pocahontas' horse titties?
>>7720657
tfw qt centaurfu
>>7721037
all it did was motivate me to workout. actually this is better than anything else in the thread
Holy fuck that image is triggering me.
First thing you should do is never post that image again.
>>7720899
thanks, I just ordered it
>>7720657
The last chapter in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by Joyce dives head first into the theory of beauty.
>>7722562
will post for future threads
>>7720670
underrated post to be honest
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetic-concept/
this is a good primer, it has a bibliography section at the bottom
>>7727879
looks promising
>>7720899
I've read this
where do I go from here?
>>7727879
>there are people on /lit/ who don't have Stanford Encyclopedia bookmarked in their browsers
>>7720773
You're retarded
>>7728639
The irony of this post is delicious
