If art offers a way for people to temporarily escape the suffering that results from willing
And if beautiful women are subjectively deemed as aesthetically pleasing forms of art
Then is indulging your life with beautiful women a way to escape the suffering that results from willing?
If so, isn't female beauty the highest form of art, as it contains all four dimensions?
*If I am getting this concept [aesthetics] wrong, which I mainly am getting from Schopenhauer please critique or correct me. Obviously my case assumes that the viewer is fond of the female beauty
>>7814507
I'd say not. As I understand it, art is an extension of the artist, and contains his ideas, his emotions, and, more importantly, his interpretation of reality. And since the way a woman looks is not normally a choice, in my mind, it wouldn't qualify as art.
>>7814507
Women ruin their aesthetic value by possessing an independent will.
This makes them the cause of, rather than escape from, suffering.
>>7814507
>isn't female beauty the highest form of art
nope, male body has higher aesthetic potential
strictly no homo of course, but people outside /fit/ have trouble grasping that because they haven't seen enough naked male bodies yet so they're insecure
>>7814520
That is a great point, but have you ever looked at a person (face or body) and felt as if you were no longer strangled to your will, even for a little?
I am strictly talking about beauty here, not arousal
your second reasoning is weird
feminine beauty is not an art in itself
beauty becomes art, not art becomes beauty
feminine beauty reflects an aspect of the stimulating versus the sublime, which is the hostility to the human will
>on the positive side, he gives as examples, “prepared and table-ready dishes, oysters, herring, lobster, bread and butter, beer, wine, etc.” (WWR I, 232). Since he holds that these necessarily stir the appetite, they inevitably resist aesthetic contemplation and are therefore unsuitable to be presented in works of art such as still-life paintings.
>Along the same lines, a calculatedly-arousing treatment of nudes—what we might today put on a spectrum of pornography—for Schopenhauer, prevents aesthetic contemplation because it inevitably excites lust and thus runs counter to the proper goals of art
for schopenhauer these are the things we cannot intellectually detach to contemplate aesthetically
but his category of sublime is the opposite, like a picture of a hurricane or of the starry sky or desert etc
you are trying to make female beauty into the schopenhauer sublime, i don't think he'll agree doe
>>7814527
>male body has higher aesthetic potential
Could you elaborate on that?
No. Because >>7814540
Also, the cessation of the Will that art offers seems to be infinitesimal for Schopenhauer. It's gone in a flash. I can't just carry a Monet around with me everywhere I go and be at eternal peace. Art is solely a taste. A glimpse of what the saint achieves in full measure.
Art can often be a way to introduce suffering as well. Idealizing art to a mere teleological activity I think misses the importance of the activity of art. Both the artist and the audience participate in the aesthetic. An artist may create for a number of reasons and an audience may keep coming back for any different reason. This isn't because art is baseless and 'subjective' (in a negative sense), but because it brings together a diversity of experiences and points toward or even away from something. Perhaps even that is too much to say about the aesthetic. But if through art you are looking for an escape, beautiful women can be a Pandora's box of problems, as well as a great thing.
Why is it always a still image that is considered art and not the thing in itself. For example, seeing a painting of a Grand Canyon makes one escape the suffering yet seeing the actual Grand Canyon does not?!
>>7814540
Would a painting of a beautiful woman then result in a temporal escape from the suffering that results from willing?
>>7814565
>beautiful women can be a Pandora's box of problems, as well as a great thing
Care to elaborate?
>>7814568
here is the escape: the world as representation from need urge and crave
when you see a painting of a beautiful woman do you see the world in its representation, are you awed by its satisfaction to your intellect
or does it feed your hunger
this is the difference between stimulation vs sublime
is the painting of a beautiful woman only* intellectual stimulating without any effect on the human condition, because if so a picture of a bee or a flower can be just as stimulating
the reason why feminine beauty is singled-out because it cannot be freed
Art is a human concept
Things created by humans tend to be very subjective
Therefore art is subjective
>>7814571
A beautiful woman is also a human being. And as a human being, she can make decisions that piss you off. But at the same time she can make decisions that don't piss you off and instead just be the aesthetic object of escape you desire.
>>7814520
>implying the artist isn't God
OP you're not "wrong," there are just loads of aesthetic theories out there. Check out Burke and pic related.
>>7814740
I've actually considered that possibility.
>>7814527
this is a stupid thing to say
to think that only one sex is the one with "higher aesthetic potential", and not that human bodies of either sex have a high aesthetic potential, then you are, in fact, the one who has not seen enough naked bodies in general yet
i would argue that the joining of a male and female has the highest aesthetic potential
>>7814571
Beautiful women can be a huge asset and make your life sweet in ways that continually surprise you if they are loyal and you love them.
If they aren't totally hooked on you, they have the power to turn your whole psyche inside out if you love them.
The simple solution is not to love anyone who isn't loyal to you, but it's hard when sexual desire and other emotions come into the mix.
Source: dated a girl who looks a whole lot like pic related with a varsity tennis player's body and an amazing brain.
>>7814520
>The way a woman looks is not normally a choice
The aesthetics are not but the personality and character is. Choice and character is introduced by the woman herself. And although OP probably intends to keep the scope of aesthetics here strictly visual, why not extend it to the woman's femininity that she chooses for herself?
>>7814582
So not all art can make one escape?
You are saying that female beauty can not be considered as aesthetics escapism because it evokes the emotion of desire?
>>7816320
wew
>>7814507
>cunnyfags are migrating to /lit/
nice
>>7816320
he's talking about Schopenhauer and I believe Schopenhauer would not agree
how people see art i don't know
