Dear Per and list

Well, it seems to me that your first seminar of your course is already
emerging on this list discussion: the difference between Objectivist and
Subjectivist aesthetics. Objectivism assumes that the main influence on our
aesthetic reception of an object derives from properties of the object
itself. Conversely Subjectivism assumes that the main influence is the
perceiving individual. Neither assumes that the object or the subject is the
ONLY influence, just that one is more instrumental than the other. On this
list we have seen examples of each.

Best wishes
Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: CEPHAD - Centre for Philosophy and Design
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robin Durie
Sent: 27 February 2008 08:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: SV: Any ideas for a practical aesthetics?

Hello Per



I am slightly sceptical of the feasibility of the kind of practical
aesthetics you describe. This is in part because, I think, aesthetics as a
discipline is primarily concerned with a theory of judgements, specifically,
of judgements about 'the beautiful', or about beautiful things. What you
seek, on the other hand, is a theoretically grounded account of a praxis.
The two need not be mutually exclusive, but there would appear to be
significant obstacles to reconciling the two objectives within a unified
theory.



Notwithstanding these reservations, I personally would urge any such course
to begin with, or at least deal as early as possible with, Kant's theory of
aesthetic judgement, specifically as it refers to the beautiful (rather than
the sublime, which latter would seem to me to fall outside the confines of
design). This is partly because Kant more or less defines the parameters for
all successive discourses on aesthetics; & partly because there is a
significant normative strain running throughout his text. Also, he
thematises problems relating to the principles of interest & disinterest,
the subjectivity of taste & the objectivity of judgment, and the issues of
purposiveness and of form. For all of these reasons, I think there is a
genuinely rich potential within Kant's work for critically addressing the
potential of the project you outline.



all the best



robin



Dr Robin Durie

Senior Lecturer in Political Theory

Department of Politics

Exeter University


-----Original Message-----
From: CEPHAD - Centre for Philosophy and Design on behalf of Per Galle
Sent: Tue 2/26/2008 7:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Any ideas for a practical aesthetics?

Dear 'CEPHADians',


I have the privilege of teaching design theory to hundreds of bright young
people at Danmarks Designskole about 60% of my time, while the remaining 60%
are dedicated to research. For some time I have been entertaining the idea
of taking up research on aesthetics, as a subject within design theory, and
potentially as a subject for future teaching. I am aware that there is a
huge literature on aesthetics, though I am not familiar with much of it so
far; but I also have the impression that it tends to be of little relevance
to practical design work. If that impression is right, something ought to be
done about it, I think.

What I wish I could offer my students would be some sort of explicit theory
of "practical aesthetics". A theory, that is, which would be of instrumental
value to designers who want to design artefacts of aesthetic quality. A
theory useful to designers who want to design "beautiful things" in an
informed manner, relying not only on their intuition and talent, but on a
solid theoretical basis as well. I wonder if such a theory is conceivable at
all, and what it would look like? I wonder if it's possible to come up with
something more solid, general and operational than mere artistic manifestos?
I wonder if explicit and sharable knowledge can be a road to beauty, or if
beauty can only be reached by the darker and narrower path of sheer
volition? (And I am not thinking of those rather technical theories that are
based on statistical analysis of consumer responses to various product
properties, but rather a theory offering a somewhat deeper understanding.)

I suppose it may be considered terribly naïve to ask questions like these,
but then so be it! Needless to say, if any of you have suggestions, comments
or pieces of advice to offer, I'd be very interested. If you would like to
share them with us on this list, for an online discussion, it would
obviously be even better.


All the best,
Per.

--

Per Galle, Ph.D., FDRS
Centre for Philosphy and Design
Centre for Design Research
Danmarks Designskole
Strandboulevarden 47
DK-2100 Copenhagen OE
Denmark.

Telephone: +45 3527 7500.
Direct line: +45 3527 7633.




--
Denne meddelelse er blevet scannet for virus og farligt indhold
af Karch Postvaskeri og anses for sikker.