Aesthetics

“Aesthetic” redirects here. For the EP by From First toLast, see Aesthetic (EP).

Aesthetics (/ɛsˈθɛtɪks/; also spelled æsthetics andesthetics also known in Greek as Αισθητική, or“Aisthētiké") is a branch of philosophy dealing with thenature of art, beauty, and taste, with the creation and ap-preciation of beauty.[1][2] It is more scientifically definedas the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, some-times called judgments of sentiment and taste.[3] Morebroadly, scholars in the field define aesthetics as “criticalreflection on art, culture and nature.”[4][5] In modern En-glish, the term aesthetic can also refer to a set of princi-ples underlying the works of a particular art movement ortheory: One speaks for example of the Cubist aesthetic.[6]

1 Etymology

The word aesthetic is derived from the Greekαἰσθητικός (aisthetikos, meaning “esthetic, sensitive,sentient”), which in turn was derived from αἰσθάνομαι(aisthanomai, meaning “I perceive, feel, sense”).[7] Theterm “aesthetics” was appropriated and coined with newmeaning in the German form Æsthetik (modern spellingÄsthetik) by Alexander Baumgarten for the first time inhis dissertation Mediationes philosophicae de nonnullisad poema pertinentibus (“Philosophical considerationsof some matters pertaining the poem”) in 1735,[8] eventhough his later definition in the fragment Aesthetica(1753) is more often referred to as the first definition ofmodern aesthetics.[9]

2 Aesthetics and the philosophy ofart

Aesthetics is for the artist as Ornithology isfor the birds.

— Barnett Newman[10][11]

For some, aesthetics is considered a synonym for the phi-losophy of art since Hegel, while others insist that thereis a significant distinction between these closely relatedfields. In practice, aesthetic judgement refers to the sen-sory contemplation or appreciation of an object (not nec-essarily an art object), while artistic judgement refers to

the recognition, appreciation or criticism of art or an artwork.Philosophical aesthetics has not only to speak about artand to produce judgments about art works, but has alsoto give a definition of what art is. Art is an autonomousentity for philosophy, because art deals with the senses (i.e. the etymology of aesthetics) and art is as such free ofany moral or political purpose. Hence, there are two dif-ferent conceptions of art in aesthetics: art as knowledgeor art as action, but aesthetics is neither epistemology norethics.[12]

3 History of aesthetics before the20th century

Main article: History of aesthetics before the 20thcentury

See also : Beauty (ancient thought)

Bronze sculpture, thought to be either Poseidon or Zeus, NationalArchaeological Museum of Athens

Any aesthetic doctrines that guided the production andinterpretation of prehistoric art are mostly unknown. Anindirect concern with aesthetics can be inferred fromancient art in many early civilizations, including Egypt,Mesopotamia, Persia, Greece, China, the Etruscans,Rome, India, the Celtic peoples, and the Maya, as eachof them developed a unique and characteristic style in itsart.Western aesthetics usually refers to Greek philosophersas the earliest source of formal aesthetic considerations.

1

2 3 HISTORY OF AESTHETICS BEFORE THE 20TH CENTURY

Plato believed in beauty as a form in which beautifulobjects partake and which causes them to be beautiful.He felt that beautiful objects incorporated proportion,harmony, and unity among their parts. Similarly, in theMetaphysics, Aristotle found that the universal elementsof beauty were order, symmetry, and definiteness.

Cubist painting by Georges Braque, Violin and Candlestick(1910)

From the late 17th to the early 20th century Westernaesthetics underwent a slow revolution into what is of-ten called modernism. German and British thinkers em-phasised beauty as the key component of art and of theaesthetic experience, and saw art as necessarily aiming atabsolute beauty.For Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten aesthetics is the sci-ence of the sense experiences, a younger sister of logic,and beauty is thus the most perfect kind of knowledgethat sense experience can have. For Immanuel Kant theaesthetic experience of beauty is a judgment of a sub-jective but similar human truth, since all people shouldagree that “this rose is beautiful” if it in fact is. How-ever, beauty cannot be reduced to any more basic set offeatures. For Friedrich Schiller aesthetic appreciation ofbeauty is the most perfect reconciliation of the sensualand rational parts of human nature.For Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, the philosophyof art is the “organon” of philosophy concerning the re-lation between man and nature. So aesthetics began nowto be the name for the philosophy of art. Friedrich vonSchlegel, August Wilhelm Schlegel, Friedrich Schleier-macher and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel also gavelectures on aesthetics as philosophy of art after 1800.For Hegel, all culture is a matter of “absolute spirit” com-

ing to be manifest to itself, stage by stage, changing to aperfection that only philosophy can approach. Art is thefirst stage in which the absolute spirit is manifest immedi-ately to sense-perception, and is thus an objective ratherthan subjective revelation of beauty.For Arthur Schopenhauer aesthetic contemplation ofbeauty is the most free that the pure intellect can be fromthe dictates of will; here we contemplate perfection ofform without any kind of worldly agenda, and thus anyintrusion of utility or politics would ruin the point of thebeauty. It is thus for Schopenhauer one way to fight thesuffering.The British were largely divided into intuitionist and an-alytic camps. The intuitionists believed that aesthetic ex-perience was disclosed by a single mental faculty of somekind. For Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftes-bury this was identical to the moral sense, beauty justis the sensory version of moral goodness. For LudwigWittgenstein aesthetics consisted in the description of awhole culture which is a linguistic impossibility. Hencehis viewpoint can be paraphrased as “That which con-stitutes aesthetics lies outside the realm of the languagegame”.

William Hogarth, self-portrait, 1745

For Oscar Wilde, the contemplation of beauty forbeauty’s sake (augmented by John Ruskin's search formoral grounding) was more than the foundation for muchof his literary career; he once stated, “Aestheticism is asearch after the signs of the beautiful. It is the science ofthe beautiful through which men seek the correlation ofthe arts. It is, to speak more exactly, the search after thesecret of life.”.[13]

3

Wilde famously toured the United States in 1882. Hetravelled across the United States spreading the idea ofAesthetics in a speech called “The English Renaissance.”In his speech he proposed that Beauty and Aesthetics was“not languid but energetic. By beautifying the outwardaspects of life, one would beautify the inner ones.” TheEnglish Renaissance was, he said, “like the Italian Renais-sance before it, a sort of rebirth of the spirit of man”.[14]

For Francis Hutcheson beauty is disclosed by an innermental sense, but is a subjective fact rather than an ob-jective one. Analytic theorists like Henry Home, LordKames, William Hogarth, and Edmund Burke hoped toreduce beauty to some list of attributes. Hogarth, for ex-ample, thinks that beauty consists of (1) fitness of theparts to some design; (2) variety in as many ways as pos-sible; (3) uniformity, regularity or symmetry, which isonly beautiful when it helps to preserve the character offitness; (4) simplicity or distinctness, which gives pleasurenot in itself, but through its enabling the eye to enjoy vari-ety with ease; (5) intricacy, which provides employmentfor our active energies, leading the eye on “a wanton kindof chase"; and (6) quantity or magnitude, which drawsour attention and produces admiration and awe. Lateranalytic aestheticians strove to link beauty to some scien-tific theory of psychology (such as James Mill) or biology(such as Herbert Spencer).

4 New Criticism and The Inten-tional Fallacy

During the first half of the twentieth century, a signifi-cant shift to general aesthetic theory took place which at-tempted to apply aesthetic theory between various formsof art, including the literary arts and the visual arts, toeach other. This resulted in the rise of the New Criti-cism school and debate concerning the intentional fallacy.At issue was the question of whether the aesthetic inten-tions of the artist in creating the work of art, whateverits specific form, should be associated with the criticismand evaluation of the final product of the work of art, or,if the work of art should be evaluated on its own meritsindependent of the intentions of the artist.In 1946,WilliamK.Wimsatt andMonroe Beardsley pub-lished a classic and controversial New Critical essay en-titled "The Intentional Fallacy", in which they arguedstrongly against the relevance of an author’s intention, or“intended meaning” in the analysis of a literary work. ForWimsatt and Beardsley, the words on the page were allthat mattered; importation of meanings from outside thetext was considered irrelevant, and potentially distracting.In another essay, "The Affective Fallacy,” which servedas a kind of sister essay to “The Intentional Fallacy”Wimsatt and Beardsley also discounted the reader’s per-sonal/emotional reaction to a literary work as a validmeans of analyzing a text. This fallacy would later be

repudiated by theorists from the reader-response schoolof literary theory. Ironically, one of the leading theo-rists from this school, Stanley Fish, was himself trainedby New Critics. Fish criticizes Wimsatt and Beardsley inhis essay “Literature in the Reader” (1970).[15]

As summarized by Gaut and Livingston in their es-say “The Creation of Art": “Structuralist and post-structuralists theorists and critics were sharply critical ofmany aspects of New Criticism, beginning with the em-phasis on aesthetic appreciation and the so-called auton-omy of art, but they reiterated the attack on biographicalcriticisms’ assumption that the artist’s activities and ex-perience were a privileged critical topic.”[16] These au-thors contend that: “Anti-intentionalists, such as formal-ists, hold that the intentions involved in the making of artare irrelevant or peripheral to correctly interpreting art.So details of the act of creating a work, though possiblyof interest in themselves, have no bearing on the correctinterpretation of the work.”[17]

Gaut and Livingston define the intentionalists as distinctfrom formalists stating that: “Intentionalists, unlike for-malists, hold that reference to intentions is essential infixing the correct interpretation of works.” They quoteRichard Wollheim as stating that, “The task of criticismis the reconstruction of the creative process, where thecreative process must in turn be thought of as somethingnot stopping short of, but terminating on, the work of artitself.”[17]

5 Post-modern aesthetics and psy-choanalysis

Example of the Dada aesthetic, Marcel Duchamp's Fountain1917

Early-twentieth-century artists, poets and composers

4 7 AESTHETICS AND SCIENCE

challenged existing notions of beauty, broadening thescope of art and aesthetics. In 1941, Eli Siegel, Ameri-can philosopher and poet, founded Aesthetic Realism, thephilosophy that reality itself is aesthetic, and that “Theworld, art, and self explain each other: each is the aes-thetic oneness of opposites.”[18][19]

Various attempts have been made to define Post-ModernAesthetics. The challenge to the assumption that beautywas central to art and aesthetics, thought to be original, isactually continuous with older aesthetic theory; Aristotlewas the first in the Western tradition to classify “beauty”into types as in his theory of drama, and Kant made a dis-tinction between beauty and the sublime. What was newwas a refusal to credit the higher status of certain types,where the taxonomy implied a preference for tragedy andthe sublime to comedy and the Rococo.Croce suggested that “expression” is central in the waythat beauty was once thought to be central. GeorgeDickiesuggested that the sociological institutions of the art worldwere the glue binding art and sensibility into unities.[20]Marshall McLuhan suggested that art always functions asa “counter-environment” designed to make visible what isusually invisible about a society.[21] Theodor Adorno feltthat aesthetics could not proceed without confronting therole of the culture industry in the commodification of artand aesthetic experience. Hal Foster attempted to por-tray the reaction against beauty and Modernist art in TheAnti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture. ArthurDanto has described this reaction as “kalliphobia” (af-ter the Greek word for beauty, κάλλος kallos).[22] AndréMalraux explains that the notion of beauty was connectedto a particular conception of art that arose with the Re-naissance and was still dominant in the eighteenth century(but was supplanted later). The discipline of aesthetics,which originated in the eighteenth century, mistook thistransient state of affairs for a revelation of the permanentnature of art.[23] Brian Massumi suggests to reconsiderbeauty following the aesthetical thought in the philoso-phy of Deleuze and Guattari.[24]

Jean-François Lyotard re-invokes the Kantian distinctionbetween taste and the sublime. Sublime painting, unlikekitsch realism, "... will enable us to see only by mak-ing it impossible to see; it will please only by causingpain.”[25][26]

Sigmund Freud inaugurated aesthetical thinking inPsychoanalysis mainly via the “Uncanny” as aestheti-cal affect.[27] Following Freud and Merleau-Ponty,[28]Jacques Lacan theorized aesthetics in terms of sublima-tion and the Thing.[29]

The relation of Marxist aesthetics to post-modern aes-thetics is still a contentious area of debate.

6 Recent aesthetics

Guy Sircello has pioneered efforts in analytic philosophy

to develop a rigorous theory of aesthetics, focusing on theconcepts of beauty,[30] love[31] and sublimity.[32] In con-trast to romantic theorists Sircello argued for the objec-tivity of beauty and formulated a theory of love on thatbasis.British philosopher and theorist of conceptual art aes-thetics, Peter Osborne, makes the point that "'post-conceptual art' aesthetic does not concern a particulartype of contemporary art so much as the historical-ontological condition for the production of contemporaryart in general...”.[33] Osborne noted that contemporary artis 'post-conceptual in a public lecture delivered in 2010.Gary Tedman has put forward a theory of a subjectlessaesthetics derived from Karl Marx’s concept of alien-ation, and Louis Althusser’s anti humanism, using ele-ments of Freud’s group psychology, defining a concept ofthe 'aesthetic level of practice'.[34]

Gregory Loewen has suggested that the subject is key inthe interaction with the aesthetic object. The work of artserves as a vehicle for the projection of the individual’sidentity into the world of objects, as well as being the ir-ruptive source of much of what is uncanny in modern life.As well, art is used to memorialize individuated biogra-phies in a manner that allows persons to imagine that theyare part of something greater than themselves.[35]

7 Aesthetics and science

Initial image of a Mandelbrot set zoom sequence with continu-ously colored environment

The field of experimental aesthetics was founded byGustav Theodor Fechner in the 19th century. Exper-imental aesthetics is characterized by a subject-based,inductive approach. The analysis of individual expe-rience and behavior based on experimental methods isa central part of experimental aesthetics. In particu-lar, the perception of works of art,[36] music, or modernitems such as websites[37] or other IT products[38] is stud-ied. Experimental aesthetics is strongly oriented towardsthe natural sciences. Modern approaches mostly come

5

from the fields of cognitive psychology or neuroscience(neuroaesthetics[39]).In the 1970s, Abraham Moles and Frieder Nake wereamong the first to analyze links between aesthetics,information processing, and information theory.[40][41]

In the 1990s, Jürgen Schmidhuber described analgorithmic theory of beauty which takes the subjectivityof the observer into account and postulates: amongseveral observations classified as comparable by a givensubjective observer, the aesthetically most pleasingone is the one with the shortest description, giventhe observer’s previous knowledge and his particularmethod for encoding the data.[42][43] This is closelyrelated to the principles of algorithmic informationtheory and minimum description length. One of hisexamples: mathematicians enjoy simple proofs with ashort description in their formal language. Another veryconcrete example describes an aesthetically pleasinghuman face whose proportions can be described byvery few bits of information,[44][45] drawing inspirationfrom less detailed 15th century proportion studies byLeonardo da Vinci and Albrecht Dürer. Schmidhuber’stheory explicitly distinguishes between what’s beautifuland what’s interesting, stating that interestingness cor-responds to the first derivative of subjectively perceivedbeauty. Here the premise is that any observer continuallytries to improve the predictability and compressibilityof the observations by discovering regularities such asrepetitions and symmetries and fractal self-similarity.Whenever the observer’s learning process (which maybe a predictive neural network; see also Neuroesthetics)leads to improved data compression such that theobservation sequence can be described by fewer bitsthan before, the temporary interestingness of the datacorresponds to the number of saved bits. This compres-sion progress is proportional to the observer’s internalreward, also called curiosity reward. A reinforcementlearning algorithm is used to maximize future expectedreward by learning to execute action sequences that causeadditional interesting input data with yet unknown butlearnable predictability or regularity. The principles canbe implemented on artificial agents which then exhibit aform of artificial curiosity.[46][47][48][49]

8 Truth as beauty, mathematics

Mathematical considerations, such as symmetry andcomplexity, are used for analysis in theoretical aesthet-ics. This is different from the aesthetic considerationsof applied aesthetics used in the study of mathematicalbeauty. Aesthetic considerations such as symmetry andsimplicity are used in areas of philosophy, such as ethicsand theoretical physics and cosmology to define truth,outside of empirical considerations. Beauty and Truthhave been argued to be nearly synonymous,[50] as re-flected in the statement “Beauty is truth, truth beauty” in

the poem Ode on a Grecian Urn by John Keats, or by theHindu motto “Satyam Shivam Sundaram” (Satya (Truth)is Shiva (God), and Shiva is Sundaram (Beautiful)). Thefact that judgments of beauty and judgments of truth bothare influenced by processing fluency, which is the easewith which information can be processed, has been pre-sented as an explanation for why beauty is sometimesequated with truth.[51] Indeed, recent research found thatpeople use beauty as an indication for truth in mathe-matical pattern tasks.[52] However, scientists includingthe mathematician David Orrell[53] and physicist MarceloGleiser[54] have argued that the emphasis on aesthetic cri-teria such as symmetry is equally capable of leading sci-entists astray.

9 Computational inference of aes-thetics

Since about 2005, computer scientists have attempted todevelop automated methods to infer aesthetic quality ofimages.[55][56][57][58] Typically, these approaches followa machine learning approach, where large numbers ofmanually rated photographs are used to “teach” a com-puter about what visual properties are of relevance to aes-thetic quality. The Acquine engine, developed at PennState University, rates natural photographs uploaded byusers.[59]

Notable in this area is Michael Leyton, professor of psy-chology at Rutgers University. Leyton is the president ofthe International Society for Mathematical and Computa-tional Aesthetics and the International Society for GroupTheory in Cognitive Science and has developed a gener-ative theory of shape.There have also been relatively successful attempts withregard to chess and music.[60] A relation between MaxBense's mathematical formulation of aesthetics in termsof “redundancy” and “complexity” and theories of musi-cal anticipation was offered using the notion of Informa-tion Rate.[61]

10 Evolutionary aesthetics

Main article: Evolutionary aesthetics

Evolutionary aesthetics refers to evolutionary psychologytheories in which the basic aesthetic preferences ofHomosapiens are argued to have evolved in order to enhancesurvival and reproductive success.[62] One example be-ing that humans are argued to find beautiful and preferlandscapes which were good habitats in the ancestral en-vironment. Another example is that body symmetry isan important aspect of physical attractiveness which maybe due to this indicating good health during body growth.

6 13 AESTHETIC JUDGMENT

Evolutionary explanations for aesthetical preferences areimportant parts of evolutionary musicology, Darwinianliterary studies, and the study of the evolution of emo-tion.

11 Applied aesthetics

Main article: Applied aesthetics

As well as being applied to art, aesthetics can also be ap-plied to cultural objects such as crucifix or tools. Aes-thetic coupling between art-objects and medical top-ics was made by speakers working for the US Infor-mation Agency[63] This coupling was made to reinforcethe learning paradigm when English-language speakersused translators to address audiences in their own coun-try. These audiences were generally not fluent in theEnglish language. It can also be used in topics as di-verse as mathematics, gastronomy, fashion and websitedesign.[64][65][66]

12 Aesthetic ethics

Aesthetic ethics refers to the idea that human conduct andbehaviour ought to be governed by that which is beauti-ful and attractive. John Dewey[67] has pointed out that theunity of aesthetics and ethics is in fact reflected in our un-derstanding of behaviour being “fair” — the word havinga double meaning of attractive and morally acceptable.More recently, James Page[68][69] has suggested that aes-thetic ethics might be taken to form a philosophical ratio-nale for peace education.

13 Aesthetic judgment

Judgments of aesthetic value rely on our ability to dis-criminate at a sensory level. Aesthetics examines ouraffective domain response to an object or phenomenon.Immanuel Kant, writing in 1790, observes of a man “Ifhe says that canary wine is agreeable he is quite content ifsomeone else corrects his terms and reminds him to sayinstead: It is agreeable to me,” because “Everyone hashis own (sense of) taste". The case of “beauty” is differ-ent from mere “agreeableness” because, “If he proclaimssomething to be beautiful, then he requires the same lik-ing from others; he then judges not just for himself butfor everyone, and speaks of beauty as if it were a propertyof things.”Aesthetic judgments usually go beyond sensory discrim-ination. For David Hume, delicacy of taste is not merely“the ability to detect all the ingredients in a composi-tion”, but also our sensitivity “to pains as well as plea-sures, which escape the rest of mankind.” (Essays Moral

Political and Literary. Indianapolis, Literary Classics 5,1987.) Thus, the sensory discrimination is linked to ca-pacity for pleasure. For Kant “enjoyment” is the resultwhen pleasure arises from sensation, but judging some-thing to be “beautiful” has a third requirement: sensationmust give rise to pleasure by engaging our capacities ofreflective contemplation. Judgments of beauty are sen-sory, emotional and intellectual all at once.Viewer interpretations of beauty possess two conceptsof value: aesthetics and taste. Aesthetics is the philo-sophical notion of beauty. Taste is a result of an educa-tion process and awareness of elite cultural values learnedthrough exposure to mass culture. Bourdieu examinedhow the elite in society define the aesthetic values liketaste and how varying levels of exposure to these valuescan result in variations by class, cultural background, andeducation.[70] According to Kant, beauty is subjective anduniversal; thus certain things are beautiful to everyone.[71]The contemporary view of beauty is not based on innatequalities, but rather on cultural specifics and individualinterpretations.

13.1 Factors involved in aesthetic judg-ment

Rainbows often have aesthetic appeal.

Judgments of aesthetical values seem often to involvemany other kinds of issues as well. Responses such asdisgust show that sensory detection is linked in instinctualways to facial expressions, and even behaviors like the gagreflex. Yet disgust can often be a learned or cultural is-sue too; as Darwin pointed out, seeing a stripe of soup ina man’s beard is disgusting even though neither soup norbeards are themselves disgusting. Aesthetic judgmentsmay be linked to emotions or, like emotions, partially em-bodied in our physical reactions. Seeing a sublime viewof a landscape may give us a reaction of awe, which mightmanifest physically as an increased heart rate or widenedeyes. These unconscious reactions may even be partlyconstitutive of what makes our judgment a judgment thatthe landscape is sublime.Likewise, aesthetic judgments may be culturally condi-tioned to some extent. Victorians in Britain often sawAfrican sculpture as ugly, but just a few decades later,Edwardian audiences saw the same sculptures as being

13.3 What is “art"? 7

beautiful. Evaluations of beauty may well be linked todesirability, perhaps even to sexual desirability. Thus,judgments of aesthetic value can become linked to judg-ments of economic, political, or moral value.[72] In a cur-rent context, one might judge a Lamborghini to be beau-tiful partly because it is desirable as a status symbol, orwe might judge it to be repulsive partly because it signi-fies for us over-consumption and offends our political ormoral values.[73]

Aesthetic judgments can often be very fine-grained andinternally contradictory. Likewise aesthetic judgmentsseem often to be at least partly intellectual and interpre-tative. It is what a thing means or symbolizes for us thatis often what we are judging. Modern aestheticians haveasserted that will and desire were almost dormant in aes-thetic experience, yet preference and choice have seemedimportant aesthetics to some 20th-century thinkers. Thepoint is already made by Hume, but see Mary Mother-sill, “Beauty and the Critic’s Judgment”, in The Black-well Guide to Aesthetics, 2004. Thus aesthetic judgmentsmight be seen to be based on the senses, emotions, intel-lectual opinions, will, desires, culture, preferences, val-ues, subconscious behavior, conscious decision, training,instinct, sociological institutions, or some complex com-bination of these, depending on exactly which theory oneemploys.

13.2 Are different art forms beautiful, dis-gusting, or boring in the same way?

A third major topic in the study of aesthetic judgmentsis how they are unified across art forms. We can calla person, a house, a symphony, a fragrance, and amathematical proof beautiful. What characteristics dothey share which give them that status? What possiblefeature could a proof and a fragrance both share in virtueof which they both count as beautiful? What makes apainting beautiful is quite different from what makes mu-sic beautiful, which suggests that each art form has its ownlanguage for the judgement of aesthetics.[74]

At the same time, there is seemingly quite a lack of wordsto express oneself accurately when making an aestheticjudgment. An aesthetic judgment cannot be an empiri-cal judgement. Therefore, due to impossibility for pre-cision, there is confusion about what interpretations canbe culturally negotiated. Due to imprecision in the stan-dard English language, two completely different feelingsexperienced by two different people can be representedby an identical verbal expression. Wittgenstein stated thisin his lectures on aesthetics and language games.A collective identification of beauty, with willing partici-pants in a given social spectrum, may be a socially nego-tiated phenomenon, discussed in a culture or context. Isthere some underlying unity to aesthetic judgment and isthere some way to articulate the similarities of a beauti-ful house, beautiful proof, and beautiful sunset?[75] Defin-

ing it requires a description of the entire phenomenon, asWittgenstein argued in his lectures on aesthetics. Like-wise there has been long debate on how perception ofbeauty in the natural world, especially perception of thehuman form as beautiful, is supposed to relate to perceiv-ing beauty in art or artefacts. This goes back at least toKant, with some echoes even in St. Bonaventure.

13.3 What is “art"?

Harmony of colors

How best to define the term “art” is a subject of con-stant contention; many books and journal articles havebeen published arguing over even the basics of what wemean by the term “art”.[76] Theodor Adorno claimedin 1969 “It is self-evident that nothing concerning artis self-evident.”[77][78] Artists, philosophers, anthropolo-gists, psychologists and programmers all use the notion ofart in their respective fields, and give it operational defini-tions that vary considerably. Furthermore, it is clear thateven the basic meaning of the term “art” has changed sev-eral times over the centuries, and has continued to evolveduring the 20th century as well.The main recent sense of the word “art” is roughly as anabbreviation for creative art or "fine art.” Here we meanthat skill is being used to express the artist’s creativity, orto engage the audience’s aesthetic sensibilities, or to drawthe audience towards consideration of the “finer” things.Often, if the skill is being used in a functional object,people will consider it a craft instead of art, a suggestionwhich is highly disputed by many Contemporary Craftthinkers. Likewise, if the skill is being used in a com-mercial or industrial way it may be considered design in-stead of art, or contrariwise these may be defended as artforms, perhaps called applied art. Some thinkers, for in-stance, have argued that the difference between fine artand applied art has more to do with the actual function ofthe object than any clear definitional difference.[79] Artusually implies no function other than to convey or com-

8 13 AESTHETIC JUDGMENT

municate an idea.Even as late as 1912 it was normal in the West to assumethat all art aims at beauty, and thus that anything thatwasn't trying to be beautiful couldn't count as art. Thecubists, dadaists, Stravinsky, and many later art move-ments struggled against this conception that beauty wascentral to the definition of art, with such success that,according to Danto, “Beauty had disappeared not onlyfrom the advanced art of the 1960’s but from the ad-vanced philosophy of art of that decade as well.”[77]Perhaps some notion like “expression” (in Croce’s the-ories) or “counter-environment” (in McLuhan’s theory)can replace the previous role of beauty. Brian Massumibrought back “beauty” into consideration together with“expression”.[80] Another view, as important to the phi-losophy of art as “beauty,” is that of the “sublime,” elab-orated upon in the twentieth century by the postmodernphilosopher Jean-François Lyotard. A further approach,elaborated by AndréMalraux in works such as The Voicesof Silence, is that art is fundamentally a response toa metaphysical question ('Art', he writes, 'is an 'anti-destiny'). Malraux argues that, while art has sometimesbeen oriented towards beauty and the sublime (princi-pally in post-Renaissance European art) these qualities,as the wider history of art demonstrates, are by no meansessential to it.[81]

Perhaps (as in Kennick’s theory) no definition of art ispossible anymore. Perhaps art should be thought of asa cluster of related concepts in a Wittgensteinian fashion(as in Weitz or Beuys). Another approach is to say that“art” is basically a sociological category, that whateverart schools and museums and artists define as art is con-sidered art regardless of formal definitions. This “insti-tutional definition of art” (see also Institutional Critique)has been championed by George Dickie. Most peopledid not consider the depiction of a store-bought urinalor Brillo Box to be art until Marcel Duchamp and AndyWarhol (respectively) placed them in the context of art(i.e., the art gallery), which then provided the associationof these objects with the associations that define art.Proceduralists often suggest that it is the process by whicha work of art is created or viewed that makes it art, notany inherent feature of an object, or how well received itis by the institutions of the art world after its introductionto society at large. If a poet writes down several lines,intending them as a poem, the very procedure by whichit is written makes it a poem. Whereas if a journalistwrites exactly the same set of words, intending them asshorthand notes to help him write a longer article later,these would not be a poem. Leo Tolstoy, on the otherhand, claims in hisWhat is art? (1897) that what decideswhether or not something is art is how it is experienced byits audience, not by the intention of its creator. Function-alists like Monroe Beardsley argue that whether or not apiece counts as art depends on what function it plays in aparticular context; the same Greek vase may play a non-artistic function in one context (carrying wine), and an

artistic function in another context (helping us to appre-ciate the beauty of the human figure). 'Marxist attempts to define art focus on its place in themode of production, such as in Walter Benjamin's es-say The Author as Producer,[82] and/or its political role inclass struggle.[83] Revising some concepts of the Marxistphilosopher Louis Althusser, Gary Tedman defines art interms of social reproduction of the relations of produc-tion on the aesthetic level.[84]

See also: Classificatory disputes about art

13.4 What should art be like?

Many goals have been argued for art, and aestheticiansoften argue that some goal or another is superior in someway. Clement Greenberg, for instance, argued in 1960that each artistic medium should seek that which makes itunique among the possible mediums and then purify itselfof anything other than expression of its own uniqueness asa form.[85] The Dadaist Tristan Tzara on the other handsaw the function of art in 1918 as the destruction of amad social order. “We must sweep and clean. Affirm thecleanliness of the individual after the state of madness,aggressive complete madness of a world abandoned to thehands of bandits.”[86] Formal goals, creative goals, self-expression, political goals, spiritual goals, philosophicalgoals, and even more perceptual or aesthetic goals haveall been popular pictures of what art should be like.

13.5 The value of art

Tolstoy defined art as the following: “Art is a humanactivity consisting in this, that one man consciously, bymeans of certain external signs, hands on to others feel-ings he has lived through, and that other people are in-fected by these feelings and also experience them.” How-ever, this definition is merely a starting point for his the-ory of art’s value. To some extent, the value of art, forTolstoy, is one with the value of empathy. However,sometimes empathy is not of value. In chapter fifteenofWhat Is Art?, Tolstoy says that some feelings are good,but others are bad, and so art is only valuable when itgenerates empathy or shared feeling for good feelings.For example, Tolstoy asserts that empathy for decadentmembers of the ruling class makes society worse, ratherthan better. In chapter sixteen, he asserts that the bestart is “universal art” that expresses simple and accessiblepositive feeling.[87]

Other possible views are these: Art can act as a meansto some special kind of knowledge. Art may give insightinto the human condition. Art relates to science and reli-gion. Art serves as a tool of education, or indoctrination,or enculturation. Art makes us more moral. It uplifts usspiritually. Art is politics by other means. Art has the

9

value of allowing catharsis. In any case, the value of artmay determine the suitability of an art form. Do they dif-fer significantly in their values, or (if not) in their abilityto achieve the unitary value of art?But to approach the question of the value of art system-atically, one ought to ask: for whom? For the artist? Forthe audience? For society at large, and/or for individualsbeyond the audience? Is the “value” of art different ineach of these different contexts?Working on the intended value of art tends to help definethe relations between art and other acts. Art clearly doeshave spiritual goals in many contexts, but what exactly isthe difference between religious art and religion per se?The truth is complex; art is both useless in a functionalsense, and also the most important human activity.An argument for the value of art, used in the fictionalwork The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, proceeds that,if some external force presenting imminent destruction ofEarth asked humanity what its value was—what shouldhumanity’s response be? The argument continues thatthe only justification humanity could give for its contin-ued existence would be the past creation and continuedcreation of things like a Shakespeare play, a Rembrandtpainting or a Bach concerto. The suggestion is that theseare the things of value which define humanity.[88] What-ever one might think of this claim — and it does seem toundervalue the many other achievements of which humanbeings have shown themselves capable, both individuallyand collectively — it is true that art appears to possess aspecial capacity to endure (“live on”) beyond the momentof its birth, in many cases for centuries or millennia. Thiscapacity of art to endure over time — what precisely it isand how it operates— has been widely neglected in mod-ern aesthetics.[89]

14 Aesthetic universals

The philosopher Denis Dutton identified six universal sig-natures in human aesthetics:[90]

1. Expertise or virtuosity. Humans cultivate, recog-nize, and admire technical artistic skills.

2. Nonutilitarian pleasure. People enjoy art for art’ssake, and don't demand that it keep them warm orput food on the table.

3. Style. Artistic objects and performances satisfyrules of composition that place them in a recogniz-able style.

4. Criticism. People make a point of judging, appreci-ating, and interpreting works of art.

5. Imitation. With a few important exceptions like ab-stract painting, works of art simulate experiences ofthe world.

6. Special focus. Art is set aside from ordinary life andmade a dramatic focus of experience.

It might be objected, however, that there are too many ex-ceptions to Dutton’s categories. For example, the installa-tions of the contemporary artist Thomas Hirschhorn de-liberately eschew technical virtuosity. People can appre-ciate a Renaissance Madonna for aesthetic reasons, butsuch objects often had (and sometimes still have) specificdevotional functions. “Rules of composition” that mightbe read into Duchamp's Fountain or John Cage's 4′33″ donot locate the works in a recognizable style (or certainlynot a style recognizable at the time of the works’ realisa-tion). Moreover, some of Dutton’s categories seem toobroad: a physicist might entertain hypothetical worlds inhis/her imagination in the course of formulating a the-ory. Another problem is that Dutton’s categories seekto universalise traditional European notions of aesthet-ics and art forgetting that, as André Malraux and othershave pointed out, there have been large numbers of cul-tures in which such ideas (including the idea “art” itself)were non-existent.[91]

15 Criticism

The philosophy of aesthetics as a practice has been crit-icized by some sociologists and writers of art and soci-ety. RaymondWilliams argues that there is no unique andor individual aesthetic object which can be extrapolatedfrom the art world, but that there is a continuum of cul-tural forms and experience of which ordinary speech andexperiences may signal as art. By “art” wemay frame sev-eral artistic “works” or “creations” as so though this refer-ence remains within the institution or special event whichcreates it and this leaves some works or other possible“art” outside of the frame work, or other interpretationssuch as other phenomenon which may not be consideredas “art”.Pierre Bourdieu disagrees with Kant’s idea of the “aes-thetic”. He argues that Kant’s “aesthetic” merely repre-sents an experience that is the product of an elevated classhabitus and scholarly leisure as opposed to other possibleand equally valid “aesthetic” experiences which lay out-side Kant’s narrow definition.Timothy Laurie argues that theories of musical aesthet-ics “framed entirely in terms of appreciation, contem-plation or reflection risk idealising an implausibly unmo-tivated listener defined solely through musical objects,rather than seeing them as a person for whom complexintentions and motivations produce variable attractions tocultural objects and practices”.[92]

10 16 AESTHETICS IN NON-WESTERN CULTURES

16 Aesthetics in Non-Western cul-tures

16.1 Indian aesthetics

Indian art evolved with an emphasis on inducing specialspiritual or philosophical states in the audience, or withrepresenting them symbolically. According to KapilaVatsyayan, “Classical Indian architecture, sculpture,painting, literature (kāvya), music, and dancing evolvedtheir own rules conditioned by their respective media, butthey shared with one another not only the underlying spir-itual beliefs of the Indian religio-philosophic mind, butalso the procedures by which the relationships of the sym-bol and the spiritual states were worked out in detail.”In the Pan Indian philosophic thought the term 'SatyamShivam Sundaram' is another name for the concept ofthe Supreme. 'Sat' is the truth value, 'Shiv' is the goodvalue & 'Sundaram' is the beauty value. Man through his'Srabana' or education, 'Manana' or experience and con-ceptualization and 'Sadhana' or practice, through differ-ent stages of life (Ashramas) comes to form and realizethe idea of these three values to develop a value system.This Value-system helps develop two basic ideas 1) thatof 'Daksha' or the adept/expert and 2) ofMahana/Paramaor the Absolute and thus to judge anything in this universein the light of these two measures, known as 'Adarsha'. Aperson who has mastered great amounts of knowledge ofthe grammars, rules, & language of an art-form are adepts(Daksha), whereas those who have worked through thewhole system and journeyed ahead of these to becomea law unto themselves is called a Mahana. Individualsidea of 'Daksha' and 'Mahana' is relative to the develop-ment of the concept of 'Satyam-Shivam-Sundaram.' Forexample, Tagore’s idea of these two concepts should beabove any common man’s and many perceive Tagore asa 'Mahana' Artist in the realm of literature. This conceptof Satyam-Shivam-Sundaram, a kind of Value Theory isthe cornerstone of Indian Aesthetics.Of particular concern to Indian drama and literature arethe term 'Bhava' or the state of mind and rasa referringgenerally to the emotional flavors/essence crafted into thework by the writer and relished by a 'sensitive spectator'or sahṛdaya. Poets like Kālidāsa were attentive to rasa,which blossomed into a fully developed aesthetic system.Even in contemporary India the term rasa denoting “fla-vor” or “essence” is used colloquially to describe the aes-thetic experiences in films; “māsala mix” describes pop-ular Hindi cinema films which serve a so-called balancedemotional meal for the masses, savored as rasa by thesespectators.Rasa theory blossoms beginning with the Sanskrit textNātyashāstra (nātyameaning “drama” and shāstramean-ing “science of”), a work attributed to Bharata Muniwhere the Gods declare that drama is the 'Fifth Veda'because it is suitable for the degenerate age as the best

form of religious instruction. While the date of com-position varies wildly among scholars, ranging from theera of Plato and Aristotle to the seventh century CE. TheNātyashāstra presents the aesthetic concepts of rasas andtheir associated bhāvas in Chapters Six and Seven respec-tively, which appear to be independent of the work as awhole. Eight rasas and associated bhāvas are named andtheir enjoyment is likened to savoring a meal: rasa is theenjoyment of flavors that arise from the proper prepara-tion of ingredients and the quality of ingredients. Whatrasa actually is, in a theoretical sense, is not discussedand given the Nātyashāstra's pithy wording it is unlikelythe exact understanding of the original author(s) will beknown.The theory of the rasas develops significantly with theKashmiri aesthetician Ãndandavardhana’s classic on po-etics, the Dhvanyāloka which introduces the ninth rasa,shānta-rasa as a specifically religious feeling of peace(śānta) which arises from its bhāva, weariness of the plea-sures of the world. The primary purpose of this text is torefine the literary concept dhvani or poetic suggestion, byarguing for the existence of the rasa-dhvani, primarilyin forms of Sanskrit including a word, sentence or wholework “suggests” a real-world emotional state or bhāva, butthanks to aesthetic distance, the sensitive spectator rel-ishes the rasa, the aesthetic flavor of tragedy, heroism orromance.The 9th–10th century master of the religious systemknown as “the nondual Shaivism of Kashmir” (or “Kash-mir Shaivism”) and aesthetician, Abhinavagupta broughtrasa theory to its pinnacle in his separate commentarieson the Dhvanyāloka, the Dhvanyāloka-locana (translatedby Ingalls, Masson and Patwardhan, 1992) and the Ab-hinavabharati, his commentary on the Nātyashāstra, por-tions of which are translated by Gnoli and Masson andPatwardhan. Abhinavagupta offers for the first time atechnical definition of rasa which is the universal blissof the Self or Atman colored by the emotional tone ofa drama. Shānta-rasa functions as an equal member ofthe set of rasas but is simultaneously distinct being themost clear form of aesthetic bliss. Abhinavagupta likensit to the string of a jeweled necklace; while it may notbe the most appealing for most people, it is the stringthat gives form to the necklace, allowing the jewels ofthe other eight rasas to be relished. Relishing the rasasand particularly shānta-rasa is hinted as being as-good-as but never-equal-to the bliss of Self-realization experi-enced by yogis.

16.2 Chinese aesthetics

Chinese art has a long history of varied styles and em-phases. Confucius emphasized the role of the arts andhumanities (especially music and poetry) in broadeninghuman nature and aiding li (etiquette, the rites) in bring-ing us back to what is essential about humanity. His oppo-nent Mozi, however, argued that music and fine arts were

16.4 Arab aesthetics 11

classist and wasteful, benefiting the rich over the poor.By the 4th century AD artists had started debating in writ-ing over the proper goals of art as well. Gu Kaizhi has leftthree surviving books on the theory of painting. Severallater artists or scholars both created art and wrote aboutthe creation of it. Religious and philosophical influenceson art were common (and diverse) but never universal.Modern Chinese aesthetic theory took shape during themodernisation of China from Empire to republic in early20th century. Thus thinkers like Kant, Hegel, Marx andHeidegger have all been incorporated into contemporaryChinese aesthetic theory, through philosophers like LiZehou.[93]

16.3 African aesthetics

The Great Mosque's signature trio of minarets overlooks the cen-tral market of Djenné. Unique Malian aesthetic

African art has existed in many forms and styles, withrelatively little influence from outside Africa. Most ofit followed traditional forms; the aesthetic norms werehanded down orally as well as textually. Sculpture andperformance art are prominent, and abstract and partiallyabstracted forms are valued, and were valued long beforeinfluence from the Western tradition began in earnest.The Nok culture is testimony to this. The mosque ofTimbuktu shows that specific areas of Africa developedunique aesthetics.

16.4 Arab aesthetics

Arab art for the last 1400 years has taken place under thecontext of Islam and is sometimes referred to as Islamicart, although many Arab artists throughout time have notbeen Muslim. The term “Islamic” refers not only to thereligion, but to any form of art created by people in anIslamic culture or in an Islamic context, whether the artistis Islamic or not. Not all Muslims are in agreement onthe use of art in religious observance, the proper placeof art in society, or the relation between secular art and

the demands placed on the secular world to conform toreligious precepts. Islamic art frequently adopts secularelements and elements that are frowned upon, if not for-bidden, by some Islamic theologians.[94] Although the of-ten cited opposition in Islam to the depiction of humanand animal forms holds true for religious art and archi-tecture, in the secular sphere, such representations haveflourished in nearly all Islamic cultures.The Islamic resistance to the representation of living be-ings ultimately stems from the belief that the creationof living forms is unique to God, and it is for this rea-son that the role of images and image makers has beencontroversial. The strongest statements on the subject offigural depiction are made in the Hadith (Traditions ofthe Prophet), where painters are challenged to “breathelife” into their creations and threatened with punishmenton the Day of Judgment. The Qur'an is less specificbut condemns idolatry and uses the Arabic term mu-sawwir (“maker of forms,” or artist) as an epithet forGod. Partially as a result of this religious sentiment, fig-ures in painting were often stylized and, in some cases,the destruction of figurative artworks occurred. Icon-oclasm was previously known in the Byzantine periodand aniconicism was a feature of the Judaic world, thusplacing the Islamic objection to figurative representationswithin a larger context. As ornament, however, figureswere largely devoid of any larger significance and per-haps therefore posed less challenge.[95]

This tendency affected the narrowing field of artisticpossibility to such forms of art as Arabesque, mosaic,Islamic calligraphy, and Islamic architecture, as well asany form of abstraction that can claim the status of non-representational art.Limited possibilities have been explored by artists as anoutlet to artistic expression, and has been cultivated tobecome a positive style and tradition, emphasizing thedecorative function of art, or its religious functions vianon-representational forms such as Geometric patterns,floral patterns, and arabesques.Human portrayals can be found in early Islamic cultureswith varying degrees of acceptance by religious author-ities. Human representation for the purpose of worshipis uniformly considered idolatry as forbidden in Sharialaw.[96][97]

The calligraphic arts grew out of an effort to devote one-self to the study of the Quran. By patiently transcribingeach word of the text, the writer was made to contem-plate themeaning of it. As time passed, these calligraphicworks began to be prized as works of art, growing in-creasingly elaborate in the illumination and stylizing ofthe text. These illuminations were applied to other worksbesides the Quran, and it became a respected art form inand of itself.Arabic is written from right to left, like other Semiticscripts, and consists of 17 characters, which, with theaddition of dots placed above or below certain of them,

12 18 REFERENCES

provide the 28 letters of the Arabic alphabet. Short vow-els are not included in the alphabet, being indicated bysigns placed above or below the consonant or long vowelthat they follow. Certain characters may be joined totheir neighbors, others to the preceding one only, andothers to the succeeding one only. The written lettersundergo a slight external change according to their po-sition within a word. When they stand alone or occurat the end of a word, they ordinarily terminate in a boldstroke; when they appear in the middle of a word, theyare ordinarily joined to the letter following by a small,upward curved stroke. With the exception of six letters,which can be joined only to the preceding ones, the ini-tial and medial letters are much abbreviated, while thefinal form consists of the initial form with a triumphantflourish. The essential part of the characters, however,remains unchanged.[98]

17 See also

• Art movement

• Art periods

• Formal analysis

• Mise en scène

• Style (visual arts)

18 References[1] “Merriam-Webster.com”. Retrieved 21 August 2012.

[2] Definition 1 of aesthetics from the Merriam-Webster Dic-tionary Online.

[3] Zangwill, Nick. "Aesthetic Judgment", Stanford Encyclo-pedia of Philosophy, 02-28-2003/10-22-2007. Retrieved07-24-2008.

[4] Kelly (1998) p. ix

[5] Review by Tom Riedel (Regis University)

[6] http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/aesthetic

[7] Definition of aesthetic from the Online Etymology Dictio-nary

[8] Guyer, Paul (13 June 2005). Values of Beauty - HistoricalEssays in Aesthetics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN0521606691.

[9] N Wilson - Encyclopedia of Ancient Greece (p.20) Rout-ledge, 31 Oct 2013 ISBN 113678800X [Retrieved 2015-05-12]

[10] Barnett Newman Foundation, Chronology, 1952 Re-trieved 30 August 2010

[11] The Abuse of Beauty: Aesthetics and the Concept of Art,By Arthur Coleman Danto, p.1, Published by Open CourtPublishing, 2003, ISBN 0-8126-9540-2, ISBN 978-0-8126-9540-3

[12] Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert, Introduction to Aesthetics(Einführung in die Ästhetik), Munich, Wilhelm Fink,1995, p. 7.

[13] “Oscar Wilde” by Richard Ellman p 122, pub Alfred AKnopf, INC. 1988

[14] Ellman, p164

[15] Leitch, Vincent B. , et al., eds. The Norton Anthology ofTheory and Criticism. New York: W. W. Norton & Com-pany, 2001.

[16] Gaut and Livingston, “The Creation of Art”, p.3.

[17] Gaut and Livingston, p.6.

[18] Green, Edward (2005). “Donald Francis Tovey, AestheticRealism and the Need for a Philosophic Musicology”. In-ternational Revue of the Aesthetics and Sociology of Mu-sic. p. 227.

[19] Siegel, Eli (1955). “Is Beauty the Making One of Oppo-sites?". Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism.

[20] “The Aesthetic Attitude”.

[21] Grosswiler, Paul (2010). Transforming McLuhan: Cul-tural, Critical, and Postmodern Perspectives. Peter LangPublishing. p. 13. ISBN 9781433110672. Retrieved 10March 2015.

[22] 'Kalliphobia in Contemporary Art' in Art Journal v. 63no. 2 (Summer 2004) p. 24–35

[23] Derek Allan, Art and the Human Adventure, André Mal-raux’s Theory of Art (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2009)

[24] Massumi, Brian, (ed.), A Shock to Thought. Expressionafter Deleuze and Guattari. London & NY: Routeledge,2002. ISBN 0-415-23804-8

[25] Lyotard, Jean-Françoise,What is Postmodernism?, in ThePostmodern Condition, Minnesota and Manchester, 1984.

[26] Lyotard, Jean-Françoise, Scriptures: Diffracted Traces,in Theory, Culture and Society, Volume 21, Number 1,2004.

[27] Freud, Sigmund, “The Uncanny” (1919). Standard Edi-tion of the Complete Psychological Work of SigmundFreud, 17:234-36. London: The Hogarth Press

[28] Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1964), “The Visible and the In-visible”. Northwestern University Press. ISBN 0-8101-0457-1

[29] Lacan, Jacques, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis (The Sem-inar of Jacques Lacan Book VII), NY: W. W. Norton &Company, 1992.

[30] Guy Sircello, A New Theory of Beauty. Princeton Essayson the Arts, 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,1975.

13

[31] Guy Sircello, Love and Beauty. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1989.

[32] Guy Sircello, “How Is a Theory of the Sublime Possible?"The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism Vol. 51, No.4 (Autumn, 1993), pp. 541–550

[33] Peter Osborne, Anywhere Or Not At All: Philosophy ofContemporary Art, Verso Books, London, 2013. pp. 3 &51

[34] Tedman, G. (2012) Aesthetics & Alienation, Zero Books

[35] Gregory Loewen, Aesthetic Subjectivity, 2011 pages 36-7, 157, 238)

[36] Kobbert, M. (1986), Kunstpsychologie (“Psychology ofart”), Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt

[37] Thielsch, M. T. (2008), Ästhetik von Websites.Wahrnehmung von Ästhetik und deren Beziehung zuInhalt, Usability und Persönlichkeitsmerkmalen. (“Theaesthetics of websites. Perception of aesthetics and itsrelation to content, usability, and personality traits.”),MV Wissenschaft, Münster

[38] Hassenzahl, M. (2008), Aesthetics in interactive products:Correlates and consequences of beauty. In H. N. J. Schif-ferstein & P. Hekkert (Eds.): Product Experience. (pp.287-302). Elsevier, Amsterdam

[39] Martindale, C. (2007), Recent trends in the psychologicalstudy of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts. In EmpiricalStudies of the Arts, 25(2), p. 121-141.

[40] A.Moles: Théorie de l'information et perception esthétique,Paris, Denoël, 1973 (Information Theory and aestheticalperception)

[41] F Nake (1974). Ästhetik als Informationsverarbeitung.(Aesthetics as information processing). Grundlagen undAnwendungen der Informatik im Bereich ästhetischerProduktion und Kritik. Springer, 1974, ISBN 3-211-81216-4, ISBN 978-3-211-81216-7

[42] http://www.jstor.org/pss/1576418

[43] http://www.idsia.ch/~{}juergen/beauty.html

[44] J. Schmidhuber. Facial beauty and fractal geometry. Cog-print Archive: http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk, 1998

[45] J. Schmidhuber. Simple Algorithmic Principles of Dis-covery, Subjective Beauty, Selective Attention, Curiosity& Creativity. Proc. 10th Intl. Conf. on Discovery Sci-ence (DS 2007) p. 26–38, LNAI 4755, Springer, 2007.Also in Proc. 18th Intl. Conf. on Algorithmic LearningTheory (ALT 2007) p. 32, LNAI 4754, Springer, 2007.Joint invited lecture for DS 2007 and ALT 2007, Sendai,Japan, 2007. arXiv:0709.0674

[46] J. Schmidhuber. Curious model-building control systems.International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, Sin-gapore, vol 2, 1458–1463. IEEE press, 1991

[47] J. Schmidhuber. Papers on artificial curiosity since 1990:http://www.idsia.ch/~{}juergen/interest.html

[48] J. Schmidhuber. Developmental robotics, optimal artifi-cial curiosity, creativity, music, and the fine arts. Connec-tion Science, 18(2):173–187, 2006

[49] “Schmidhuber’s theory of beauty and curiosity in a Ger-man TV show” (in German). Br-online.de.

[50] Why Beauty Is Truth: The History of Symmetry, IanStewart, 2008

[51] Reber, R, Schwarz, N, Winkielman, P: “Processing flu-ency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’sprocessing experience?", Personality and Social Psychol-ogy Review, 8(4):364-382

[52] Reber, R, Brun, M, Mitterndorfer, K: “The use of heuris-tics in intuitive mathematical judgment”, PsychonomicBulletin & Review, 15(6):1174–1178

[53] Orrell, David (2012). Truth or Beauty: Science and theQuest for Order. New Haven: Yale University Press.ISBN 978-0300186611.

[54] Gleiser, Marcelo (2010). A Tear at the Edge of Creation:A Radical New Vision for Life in an Imperfect Universe.Free Press. ISBN 978-1-4391-0832-1.

[55] Datta, R.; Joshi, D.; Li, J.; Wang, J. (2006). “Studyingaesthetics in photographic images using a computationalapproach”. Europ. Conf. on Computer Vision. Springer.

[56] Wong, L.-K.; Low, K.-L. (2009). “Saliency-enhanced im-age aesthetic classification”. Int. Conf. on Image Process-ing. IEEE.

[57] Wu, Y.; Bauckhage, C.; Thurau, C. (2010). “The good,the bad, and the ugly: predicting aesthetic image labels”.Int. Conf. on Pattern Recognition. IEEE.

[58] Faria, J., Bagley, S., Rueger, S., Breckon, T.P. (2013).“Challenges of Finding Aesthetically Pleasing Images”.Proc. International Workshop on Image and Audio Anal-ysis for Multimedia Interactive Services (PDF). IEEE. Re-trieved 19 June 2013.

[59] “Aesthetic Quality Inference Engine - Instant ImpersonalAssessment of Photos”. Penn State University. Archivedfrom the original on 9May 2009. Retrieved 21 June 2009.

[60] Manaris, B., Roos, P., Penousal, M., Krehbiel, D., Pel-licoro, L. and Romero, J.; A Corpus-Based Hybrid Ap-proach to Music Analysis and Composition; Proceedingsof 22nd Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-07);Vancouver, BC; 839-845 2007.

[61] Dubnov, S.; Musical Information Dynamics as Models ofAuditory Anticipation; in Machine Audition: Principles,Algorithms and Systems, Ed. W. Weng, IGI Global pub-lication, 2010.

[62] Shimura, Arthur P.; Palmer, Stephen E. (January 2012).Aesthetic Science: Connecting Minds, Brains, and Experi-ence. Oxford University Press. p. 279.

[63] Giannini AJ (December 1993). “Tangential sym-bols: using visual symbolization to teach pharmacolog-ical principles of drug addiction to international audi-ences”. Journal of clinical pharmacology 33 (12): 1139–46. doi:10.1002/j.1552-4604.1993.tb03913.x. PMID7510314.

14 19 FURTHER READING

[64] Moshagen, M. & Thielsch, M. T. (2010). Facets of visualaesthetics. In: International Journal of Human-ComputerStudies, 68 (10), 689-709.

[65] “Visual Aesthetics”. Interaction-design.org. Retrieved 31July 2012.

[66] Lavie, T. & Tractinsky, N. (2004). Assessing dimensionsof perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. InternationalJournal of Human-Computer Studies, 60, 269–298.

[67] Dewey, John. (1932)'Ethics’, with James Tufts. In: TheCollected Works of John Dewey, 1882–1953 Edited Jo-Ann Boydston: Carbonsdale: Southern Illinois UniversityPress. p. 275.

[68] http://www.infoagepub.com/products/content/p478d75b79b1ea.php

[69] http://eprints.qut.edu.au/12263/

[70] Bourdieu, Pierre (1984). Distinction. Routledge. ISBN0-674-21277-0

[71] “Aesthetic Judgment”. Retrieved 23 September 2014.

[72] Holm, Ivar (2006). Ideas and Beliefs in Architecture andIndustrial design: How attitudes, orientations, and underly-ing assumptions shape the built environment. Oslo Schoolof Architecture and Design. ISBN 82-547-0174-1.

[73] Korsmeyer, Carolyn ed. Aesthetics: The Big Questions1998

[74] Consider Clement Greenberg’s arguments in “On Mod-ernist Painting” (1961), reprinted in Aesthetics: A Readerin Philosophy of Arts.

[75] Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Judgment.

[76] Davies, 1991, Carroll, 2000, et al.

[77] Danto, 2003

[78] Goodman,

[79] Novitz, 1992

[80] Brian Massumi, Deleuze, Guattari and the Philosophy ofExpression, CRCL, 24:3, 1997.

[81] Derek Allan. Art and the Human Adventure. André Mal-raux’s Theory of Art. (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2009)

[82] Benjamin, Walter,Understanding Brecht, trans. Anna Bo-stock, Verso Books, 2003, ISBN 978-1859844182

[83] Hadjinicolaou, Nicos, Art History and Class Struggle,Pluto Press; 1978. ISBN 978-0904383270

[84] Tedman, Gary, Aesthetics & Alienation, Zero Books;2012.

[85] Clement Greenberg, “On Modernist Painting”.

[86] Tristan Tzara, Sept Manifestes Dada.

[87] Theodore Gracyk, “Outline of Tolstoy’s What Is Art?",course web page.

[88] The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, by Douglas Adams

[89] Derek Allan, Art and Time, Cambridge Scholars, 2013

[90] Denis Dutton'sAesthetic Universals summarized by StevenPinker in The Blank Slate

[91] Derek Allan, Art and the Human Adventure: André Mal-raux’s Theory of Art. (Amsterdam: Rodopi. 2009)

[92] Laurie, Timothy (2014). “Music Genre AsMethod”. Cul-tural Studies Review. 20 (2), pp. 283-292.

[93] Li Zehou

[94] Davies, Penelope J.E. Denny, Walter B. Hofrichter, FrimaFox. Jacobs, Joseph. Roberts, Ann M. Simon, DavidL. Janson’s History of Art, Prentice Hall; 2007, UpperSaddle River, New Jersey. Seventh Edition, ISBN 0-13-193455-4 pg. 277

[95] http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/figs/hd_figs.htm

[96] The Arab Contribution to Islamic Art: From the Seventh tothe Fifteenth Centuries, [Wijdan Ali], American Univ inCairo Press, 10 December 1999, ISBN 977-424-476-1

[97] From the Literal to the Spiritual: The Development ofthe Prophet Muhammad’s Portrayal from 13th centuryIlkhanid Miniatures to 17th century Ottoman Art, [SteveMwai], EJOS (Electronic Journal of Oriental Studies),volume IV, issue 7, p. 1–24, 2001

[98] http://www.calligraphyislamic.com/IntroIslamicCalligraphy.html

19 Further reading• Mario Perniola, 20th Century Aesthetics. To-

wards A Theory of Feeling, translated by MassimoVerdicchio, London-New Delhi-New York-Sydney,Bloomsbury, 2013, ISBN 978-1-4411-1850-9.

• Chung-yuan, Chang (1963–1970). Creativity andTaoism, A Study of Chinese Philosophy, Art, and Po-etry. New York: Harper Torchbooks. ISBN 0-06-131968-6.

• Handbook of Phenomenological Aesthetics. Editedby Hans Rainer Sepp and Lester Embree. (Se-ries: Contributions To Phenomenology, Vol. 59)Springer, Dordrecht / Heidelberg / London / NewYork 2010. ISBN 978-90-481-2470-1

• Theodor W. Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, Minneapo-lis, University of Minnesota Press, 1997.

• Ayn Rand, The Romantic Manifesto: A Philosophyof Literature, New York, NY, New American Li-brary, 1971

• Derek Allan, Art and the Human Adventure, AndreMalraux’s Theory of Art, Rodopi, 2009

• Derek Allan. Art and Time, Cambridge Scholars,2013.

15

• Augros, Robert M., Stanciu, George N., The NewStory of Science: mind and the universe, Lake Bluff,Ill.: Regnery Gateway, c1984. ISBN 0-89526-833-7 (has significant material on Art, Science and theirphilosophies)

• John Bender and Gene Blocker Contemporary Phi-losophy of Art: Readings in Analytic Aesthetics 1993.

• René Bergeron. L'Art et sa spiritualité. Québec,QC.: Éditions du Pelican, 1961.

• Christine Buci-Glucksmann (2003), Esthétique del'éphémère, Galilée. (French)

• Noël Carroll (2000), Theories of Art Today, Univer-sity of Wisconsin Press.

• Mario Costa (1999) (in Italian), L'estetica dei me-dia. Avanguardie e tecnologia, Milan: Castelvecchi,ISBN 88-8210-165-7.

• Benedetto Croce (1922), Aesthetic as Science of Ex-pression and General Linguistic.

• E. S. Dallas (1866), The Gay Science, 2 volumes, onthe aesthetics of poetry.

• Danto, Arthur (2003), The Abuse of Beauty: Aes-thetics and the Concept of Art, Open Court.

• Stephen Davies (1991), Definitions of Art.

• Terry Eagleton (1990), The Ideology of the Aesthetic.Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-16302-6

• Susan Feagin and Patrick Maynard (1997), Aesthet-ics. Oxford Readers.

• Penny Florence and Nicola Foster (eds.) (2000),Differential Aesthetics. London: Ashgate. ISBN 0-7546-1493-X

• Berys Gaut and DominicMcIver Lopes (eds.), Rout-ledge Companion to Aesthetics. 3rd edition. Londonand New York: Routledge, 2013.

• Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert (1995), Einführung indie Ästhetik, Munich, W. Fink.

• David Goldblatt and Lee B. Brown, ed. (2010), Aes-thetics: A Reader in the Philosophy of the Arts. 3rdedition. Pearson Publishing.

• Theodore Gracyk (2011), The Philosophy of Art: AnIntroduction. Polity Press.

• Greenberg, Clement (1960), “Modernist Painting”,The Collected Essays and Criticism 1957–1969, TheUniversity of Chicago Press, 1993, 85-92.

• Evelyn Hatcher (ed.), Art as Culture: An Introduc-tion to the Anthropology of Art. 1999

• Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1975), Aesthetics.Lectures on Fine Art, trans. T.M. Knox, 2 vols. Ox-ford: Clarendon Press.

• Hans Hofmann and Sara TWeeks; Bartlett H Hayes;Addison Gallery of American Art; Search for thereal, and other essays (Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T.Press, 1967) OCLC 1125858

• Michael Ann Holly and KeithMoxey (eds.), Art His-tory and Visual Studies. Yale University Press, 2002.ISBN 0-300-09789-1

• Carol Armstrong and Catherine de Zegher (eds.),Women Artists at the Millennium. Massachusetts:October Books/MIT Press, 2006. ISBN 0-262-01226-X

• Kant, Immanuel (1790), Critique of Judgement,Translated by Werner S. Pluhar, Hackett PublishingCo., 1987.

• Kelly, Michael (Editor in Chief) (1998) Encyclope-dia of Aesthetics. New York, Oxford, Oxford Uni-versity Press. 4 voll., pp. XVII-521, pp. 555, pp.536, pp. 572; 2224 total pages; 100 b/w photos;ISBN 978-0-19-511307-5. Covers philosophical,historical, sociological, and biographical aspects ofArt and Aesthetics worldwide.

• Alexander J. Kent, “Aesthetics: A Lost Cause inCartographic Theory?" The Cartographic Journal,42(2) 182-8, 2005.

• Søren Kierkegaard (1843), Either/Or, translated byAlastair Hannay, London, Penguin, 1992

• Peter Kivy (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics.2004

• Carolyn Korsmeyer (ed.), Aesthetics: The Big Ques-tions. 1998

• Lyotard, Jean-François (1979), The PostmodernCondition, Manchester University Press, 1984.

• Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1969), The Visible and theInvisible, Northwestern University Press.

• David Novitz (1992), The Boundaries of Art.

• Mario Perniola, The Art and Its Shadow, fore-word by Hugh J. Silverman, translated by MassimoVerdicchio, London-NewYork, Continuum, 2004.

• Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Main-tenance: An Inquiry into Values, 1974, paperpack,or hardback first edition ISBN 0-688-00230-7

• Griselda Pollock, “Does Art Think?" In: DanaArnold and Margaret Iverson (eds.) Art andThought. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 2003. 129-174.ISBN 0-631-22715-6.

16 20 EXTERNAL LINKS

• Griselda Pollock, Encounters in the Virtual FeministMuseum: Time, Space and the Archive. Routledge,2007. ISBN 0-415-41374-5.

• Griselda Pollock, Generations and Geographies inthe Visual Arts. Routledge, 1996. ISBN 0-415-14128-1.

• George Santayana (1896), The Sense of Beauty. Be-ing the Outlines of Aesthetic Theory. New York,Modern Library, 1955.

• Elaine Scarry, On Beauty and Being Just. Princeton,2001. ISBN 978-0-691-08959-1

• Friedrich Schiller, (1795), On the Aesthetic Educa-tion of Man. Dover Publications, 2004.

• Alan Singer and Allen Dunn (eds.), Literary Aesthet-ics: A Reader. Blackwell Publishing Limited, 2000.ISBN 978-0-631-20869-3

• Władysław Tatarkiewicz, A History of Six Ideas: anEssay in Aesthetics, The Hague, 1980. ISBN 978-90-247-2233-4

• Władysław Tatarkiewicz, History of Aesthetics, 3vols. (1–2, 1970; 3, 1974), The Hague, Mouton.

• Markand Thakar Looking for the 'Harp' Quartet:An Investigation into Musical Beauty. University ofRochester Press, 2011.

• Leo Tolstoy,What Is Art?, Penguin Classics, 1995.

• The London Philosophy Study Guide offers manysuggestions on what to read, depending on the stu-dent’s familiarity with the subject: Aesthetics

• John M. Valentine, Beginning Aesthetics: An Intro-duction To The Philosophy of Art. McGraw-Hill,2006. ISBN 978-0-07-353754-2

• von Vacano, Diego, “The Art of Power: Machi-avelli, Nietzsche and the Making of Aesthetic Po-litical Theory,” Lanham MD: Lexington: 2007.

• Thomas Wartenberg, The Nature of Art. 2006.

• John Whitehead, Grasping for the Wind. 2001.

• Ludwig Wittgenstein, Lectures on aesthetics, psy-chology and religious belief, Oxford, Blackwell,1966.

• Richard Wollheim, Art and its objects, 2nd edn,1980, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-29706-0

• Sen, R. K., Aesthetic Enjoyment: Its Background inPhilosophy and Medicine, Calcutta: University ofCalcutta, 1966

20 External links• Aesthetics at the Indiana Philosophy OntologyProject

• Aesthetics at PhilPapers

• Aesthetics entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Phi-losophy

• Medieval Theories of Aesthetics article in theInternet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

• Revue online Appareil

• Postscript 1980- Some Old Problems in New Per-spectives

• Aesthetics in Art Education: A Look Toward Im-plementation

• More about Art, culture and Education

• An history of aesthetics

• The Concept of the Aesthetic

• Aesthetics entry in the Routledge Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy

• Philosophy of Aesthetics entry in the PhilosophyArchive

• Washington State Board for Community & Techni-cal Colleges: Introduction to Aesthetics

• Art Perception Complete pdf version of art historianDavid Cycleback’s book.

17

21 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

21.1 Text• Aesthetics Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics?oldid=682628606 Contributors: Lee Daniel Crocker, Brion VIBBER, DanielC. Boyer, Heron, DennisDaniels, Michael Hardy, Jahsonic, Ixfd64, Kalki, Lament, Minesweeper, Wintran, Ihcoyc, Ellywa, Williamv1138,Ronz, Jid~enwiki, Angela, Glenn, Poor Yorick, Nikai, Palfrey, Raven in Orbit, Ideyal, Dcoetzee, Selket, Furrykef, Hyacinth, Omega-tron, Bloodshedder, Wetman, Banno, Owen, Jni, Robbot, Baher, Fredrik, Fifelfoo, Goethean, Gandalf61, Chris Roy, Rholton, JeffC,HaeB, Aknxy, Alan Liefting, Matt Gies, Giftlite, Mshonle~enwiki, Gene Ward Smith, Wikilibrarian, Inkling, Vishvas vasuki, Richard-decker, Zigger, Fatal error, Everyking, Alison, Rick Block, Christofurio, Bobblewik, JRR Trollkien, Chowbok, Jasper Chua, Ynh~enwiki,Quadell, Antandrus, Jossi, Caton~enwiki, Herschelkrustofsky, Bradjohns, Trevor MacInnis, Porges, Mike Rosoft, Lucidish, Discospinster,Rich Farmbrough, Guanabot, Tere, Fsvallare, JimR, Mani1, Paul August, ESkog, Chi Sigma, Neko-chan, Violetriga, El C, Mwanner, Prse-phone1674, Dungodung, Urthogie, Audrey, David Gale, John Fader, SamKorn, Haham hanuka, Pearle, Snow1215, Alansohn, Hackwrench,Ricky81682, User6854, Logologist, WhiteC, Mac Davis, Seangies, Hohum, Maqs, Mikeo, Versageek, Redvers, Feezo, Woohookitty,Bellhalla, Tedneeman, Fraterm, Wikiklrsc, SeventyThree, Palica, Allen3, MoogleFan, Mandarax, Matturn, DavidParfitt, Sparkit, Mag-ister Mathematicae, BD2412, Qwertyus, David Levy, CheshireKatz, Solace098, Sjakkalle, Rjwilmsi, Missmarple, Wipfeln, Sdornan,TheRingess, Wooddoo-eng, Slac, FlaBot, Jeffmilner, Margosbot~enwiki, Loggie, Who, Nivix, RexNL, Gurch, Alexjohnc3, Drumguy8800,Bmicomp, BMF81, Fourdee, Bornhj, David91, DVdm, Korg, VolatileChemical, Bgwhite, Summalogicae, YurikBot, Wavelength, RussBot,Serinde, Fabartus, Conscious, Pigman, TimNelson, Ori Redler, Rodasmith, Grubber, Shell Kinney, Gaius Cornelius, KSchutte, Nawlin-Wiki, Dysmorodrepanis~enwiki, Boneheadmx, Grafen, Jpbowen, Yoasif, E rulez, Raven4x4x, E2mb0t~enwiki, DryaUnda, Gadget850,Bota47, CLW, Zarboki, User27091, Zzuuzz, Squib, Open2universe, Nachoman-au, Knotnic, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Theda,Closedmouth, Endomion, Dspradau, JoanneB, Tyrenius, Curpsbot-unicodify, CharlieHuang, Allens, Infinity0, Samuel Blanning, DVD RW, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Barasoaindarra, Lestrade, KnowledgeOfSelf, Pgk, Bomac, Jagged 85, Declare, Brossow, Duprie37, Ist-vanWolf, Sebesta, Yamaguchi , JFHJr, Mediaphd, Citengam, Ohnoitsjamie, Joustinjustin, Carbon-16, Chris the speller, Persian PoetGal, NCurse, Greatgavini, Deli nk, Bazonka, Go for it!, Robth, DHN-bot~enwiki, Colonies Chris, Veggies, Can't sleep, clown will eatme, Scott3, Greenbreezegrl, Yidisheryid, Alieseraj, Nakon, Jlarson, Hoof Hearted, Richard001, RandomP, BullRangifer, DMacks, Om-nipolex, Where, Vina-iwbot~enwiki, Ceoil, SashatoBot, Vildricianus, Ser Amantio di Nicolao, Anlace, DA3N, Rigadoun, Gobonobo,Goodnightmush, IronGargoyle, Stratadrake, The Man in Question, Andypandy.UK, Mr Stephen, Waggers, Gkerkvliet, DavidKennerly,TheOtherStephan, NJA, Halaqah, Jcbutler, Violncello, Hu12, Levineps, OnBeyondZebrax, JMK, AlexLibman, Twas Now, Nádvorník,Ewulp, Adambiswanger1, Courcelles, Tawkerbot2, MarylandArtLover, Wolfdog, Postmodern Beatnik, CmdrObot, Blue-Haired Lawyer,Makeemlighter, Harej bot, Outriggr (2006-2009), Todowd, Neelix, Acabtp, Gregbard, LCP, Vectro, Cydebot, Aristophanes68, Gogo Dodo,QRX, A Softer Answer, Dr.enh, Tawkerbot4, Bookgrrl, Daven200520, Gimmetrow, Keith.Nichol, Thijs!bot, Epbr123, Billych, Chloro-form42, Pajz, Andyjsmith, Mojo Hand, Headbomb, Einmonim, Merbabu, Joymmart, Dgies, Srose, Big Bird, AJD, Bmorton3, Doremítzwr,Merond e, AntiVandalBot, Luna Santin, Aletheia, 17Drew, Ste4k, TimVickers, Egpetersen, Modernist, Wahabijaz, Jeffcrane, Sluzzelin,JAnDbot, Kaobear, Skomorokh, Lackthereof, The Transhumanist, Ravencao, Ericoides, Anthony Krupp, .anacondabot, Freshacconci,Markwalters79, Bongwarrior, VoABot II, Dekimasu, JNW, Yandman, Think outside the box, Cantiana, Rich257, Anria, Snowded, Catgut,Hiplibrarianship, Seberle, Cailil, Wehpudicabok, DerHexer, JaGa, Kaotic.nite, FriendlyFred, Jambamkin, Kalsikum~enwiki, DavidMonk,Mus Musculus, Ekki01, MartinBot, Jonathan Stokes, ExplicitImplicity, Dumbleton, Anarchia, Naohiro19, Bus stop, R'n'B, Commons-Delinker, Fconaway, Manticore, CFCF, Chevrefoil, Neutron Jack, Numbo3, Ymirfrostgiant, St.daniel, Johnbod, Ycdkwm, Ironie, Ben-nelliott, Btdurant, Brosi, Inwind, Useight, Aalit4, Idioma-bot, Alifshinobi, Malik Shabazz, VolkovBot, TreasuryTag, ABF, Pleasantville,Rucha58, Jeff G., TXiKiBoT, Differo, LainEverliving, A4bot, John Ellsworth, Aymatth2, Ocolon, Rich Janis, Screambd1, Martin451,Don4of4, Ladyxtrust, Abdullais4u, Birkinstein, Teller33, Ethicoaestheticist, Michaeldsuarez, Hanwufu, Yk Yk Yk, Lamro, Jamessmith-page, Pjoef, AlleborgoBot, Symane, Funeral, Munci, Nick Denkens, GirasoleDE, SieBot, Ivan Štambuk, Calliopejen1, Tresiden, Interstates,Aman13preet, AshleyOz, Winchelsea, AmishArmadillo, Jbmurray, Caltas, RJaguar3, M.thoriyan, JohnManuel, I'd Buy That for a Dol-lar, Scorpion451, Lara bran, Tombomp, Steven41111, Filam3nt, Muratkaraci, Escape Orbit, Ratiuglink, Tautologist, Tatterfly, Leranedo,ClueBot, SummerWithMorons, NickCT, Deviator13, Nano Dan, Bleedingshoes, Foxj, The Thing That Should Not Be, Mild Bill Hiccup,Uncle Milty, CodySteed, Boing! said Zebedee, Hafspajen, Rotational, Razorazar69, Excirial, Bhamfree, Heyoh123, Winston365, Lud-wigs2, Twartenb, Pereztonella~enwiki, Thunder4848, SvAbhinava, Promethean, Thomascochrane, Gverstraete, Positron222, Tired time,Sucnidea, Thompsontough, Apparition11, ClanCC, DumZiBoT, Darkicebot, Gopanraman, Doraannao, Gonzonoir, Doc9871, Artethical,Otisjimmy1, Haruth, Fgnievinski, CanadianLinuxUser, Slider360, BabelStone, MrOllie, FiriBot, LemmeyBOT, West.andrew.g, Squan-dermania, Tassedethe, Numbo3-bot, Tide rolls, Lightbot, Bondi444, Luckas Blade, AntiWhilst, Halaster, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot,Jrorowling, Pink!Teen, Ptbotgourou, Taxisfolder, THEN WHO WAS PHONE?, Deputyduck, Fleabox, ZapThunderstrike, AnomieBOT,Valueyou, Sandris.Ā, Hairhorn, Demonhunter698, 1exec1, Jim1138, Piano non troppo, Ulric1313, Stinkypie, Materialscientist, Citationbot, LilHelpa, FreeRangeFrog, Obersachsebot, Xqbot, Research Method, Nasnema, Abce2, Omnipaedista, Greg Tyler, Backpackadam,The Interior, Jesuseatsyou, LyleHoward, Shadowjams, Alexander.Meier, 13alexander, Armando Navarro, FrescoBot, PhiloFaster, Re-newolf, Viola Tristan, ,مناار DrilBot, Pinethicket, HRoestBot, Rameshngbot, A8UDI, Spartan 1200, Meaghan, Jujutacular, Tamsier,Jauhienij, Nathan43, Trouver, B.K.S.J., Trappist the monk, DixonDBot, Lotje, Javierito92, 777sms, Trynen, Schard~enwiki, Lysander89,Countskull, Esteve83, Whisky drinker, Onel5969, The Utahraptor, Aidan Kehoe, TjBot, Bento00, Alpha456, Meinolf Wewel, Fmura-tozdemir, DASHBot, Shabidoo, Arify4, EmausBot, Large Glass, John of Reading, Ellis.ebineezer.ellis, Cmgjr, Lusciious420, Dewritech,Boudreauxgg, Racerx11, GoingBatty, Sournick3, Berislav, SabaKahn, Azlan Iqbal, Anirudh Emani, Werieth, Debaryabanerjee, Spnge-BobSquarePants, AvicBot, ZéroBot, Nisann, T.V. A'hearn, Ebrambot, Babacol, SporkBot, Averaver, Erianna, StasMalyga, Scythia, Sem-perPirate, Ego White Tray, ChuispastonBot, Psp2010, Fuzzy artist, TYelliot, Nunatan, Miegoreng, Ashindo, Manytexts, Hermeses, Gwen-chan, ClueBot NG, MelbourneStar, Ponkje, Bulldog73, Joefromrandb, Roseworthy, CallidusUlixes, Braincricket, Lisatruman, Apsweaver,ScottSteiner, RiskyMechanics, CaroleHenson, Widr, Camblast, Helpful Pixie Bot, Anonymouswikieditor, Calabe1992, Wbm1058, Avenu-gopalarao2011, DBigXray, Anagramology, BG19bot, Julianbce, Socialmedian, Cold Season, Mark Arsten, Historicaltruthtroll, MyName-WasTaken, Zyzzbrah, Aaaaaaaaak, Altaïr, Zeezbrah, Balivernes, UrbanIndianSF, Ruckus666, Theconsequentialist, Brad7777, Polmandc,Derpderpderp2011, Loriendrew, Lieutenant of Melkor, Hadi Payami, Fuse809, Jlphaneuf, Acadēmica Orientālis, WebFlower1, Bigggny,ChrisGualtieri, Comatmebro, Laberkiste, AshBlue, Khazar2, MLeigh11, Skaspiegel, U10362779, BrightStarSky, Hmainsbot1, Mogism,GentleDjinn, Jamesx12345, Shanec057, Doktorcan, Mohiuddin6644, CsDix, Eyesnore, Star767, Cherubinirules, Malraux123, Tony1092,Melody Lavender, Ypress20, Scott Cameron Reed, FireflySixtySeven, Aubreybardo, Liz, Anne 235, Leonardo the Florentine, FortunaImperatrix Mundi, Onm3, Ninjabeard, Monkbot, LawrencePrincipe, Seattledoctor, Anjusth, Qzekrom, KatieSeech, Pineapplecat212, Je-unine, Whalestate, BeautyIsTruthTruthBeauty, KasparBot, MetlifeWP, Everynone, Redkfly, AeAnBr, The Quixotic Potato, Kawaiienthu-siast, Idekanymoree and Anonymous: 771

18 21 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

21.2 Images• File:Ambox_important.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg License: Public do-main Contributors: Own work, based off of Image:Ambox scales.svg Original artist: Dsmurat (talk · contribs)

• File:Commons-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Originalartist: ?

• File:Double-alaskan-rainbow.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Double-alaskan-rainbow.jpg Li-cense: CC BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: English Wikipedia Original artist: Eric Rolph at English Wikipedia

• File:Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg License: Publicdomain Contributors: src Original picture by Stieglitz Original artist: Marcel Duchamp

• File:Great_Mosque_of_Djenné_3.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Great_Mosque_of_Djenn%C3%A9_3.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?

• File:Mandel_zoom_00_mandelbrot_set.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Mandel_zoom_00_mandelbrot_set.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?

• File:Poseidon.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Poseidon.jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ?Original artist: ?

• File:Siproeta_epaphus_Galawebdesign.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Siproeta_epaphus_Galawebdesign.jpg License: CC BY 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Galawebdesign

• File:Socrates.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Socrates.png License: Public domain Contributors:Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons. Original artist: The original uploader wasMagnusManske at EnglishWikipedia Later versionswere uploaded by Optimager at en.wikipedia.

• File:The_Painter_and_His_Pug_by_William_Hogarth.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/The_Painter_and_His_Pug_by_William_Hogarth.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: The Tate Britain Original artist: William Hogarth

• File:Violin_and_Candlestick.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3c/Violin_and_Candlestick.jpg License: ? Con-tributors:San Francisco Museum of Modern Art Original artist:Georges Braque

• File:Wikiquote-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Wikiquote-logo.svg License: Public domainContributors: ? Original artist: ?

• File:Wikiversity-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Wikiversity-logo.svg License: CCBY-SA 3.0Contributors: Snorky (optimized and cleaned up by verdy_p) Original artist: Snorky (optimized and cleaned up by verdy_p)

21.3 Content license• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0