Dear Eduardo,
I admire your imagination! There seems a system design potential under a
misunderstanding.
Thank you for the inspiring references.
I also agree that the aesthetics and design discussion should be
considered in different categoriees.
I also considered it before. Roughly thinking, one track may be about the
concept of (universal) beauty; other may be related with taste and
aesthetics judgement. Or more categories may emerge. Your refernces and
more will be guidance.
Kind regards,
Esra.
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Eduardo A. Corte-Real <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Also I was puzzled by the Forklift Design mention.
> Mainly because I didn’t know what the hell a forklift is.
>
> Note that my ignorance derives for not using English as my native language
> and, alas, forklifts are not part of my usual social international
> relations.
> Since I know that English is a very straight forward Language that creates
> neologisms from composing different words into one, I imagined a forklift
> as a special aid tool for people with difficulties in eating. "You just let
> your fork be lifted by your forklift and food will arrive to your mouth,
> smoothly".
>
> I then though that such utensil, that I had never heard about, would be
> very difficult to produce, and most of all, so limited in its production
> that hardly would be an example in this discussion. So, I thought that
> forklifts might be entities of metaphorical designation like a derivation
> of a road into two roads, one going straight and the other going up. People
> would say: “Then you arrive to the forklift and take the upper road, then
> take the second exit in the nearby roundabout (another example of a
> composed neologism) and my place is 200m on the left”. In that sense
> forklifts required some design concerns namely on placing traffic lights
> and signs.
>
> For a moment I also thought that a forklift might be a statistics entity
> when medians go straight and averages go abruptly up. Then a forklift could
> be designed in social design enterprises.
> A forklift might also be a move in olympic fights or in judo, but that
> also would make them irrelevant for this discussion.
>
> In a way I was using the word “forklift" in my mind in the same way lots
> of people use the word aesthetics (in fact in a more elaborate way) with
> don’t really knowing what was its origin but imagining one.
>
> Aesthetics was the word that Alexander Gotlieb Baumgarten used (for the
> first time, it is also a neologism) to designate a science that he was
> proposing in 1750’s.
>
> Our first conclusion (in this forum) should be that we should not use the
> colloquial version of the word in the same way as if we were using it as a
> scientific proposition. Like Physics and physical that went to gyms
> downgraded from its scientific meaning.
>
> Baumgarten wrote in Latin, and his treatise was only translated in German
> and Italian.
> I suggest two papers to understand it better: Salvatore Tedesco’s
> (Baumgarten translator to Italian) http://www1.unipa.it/~
> estetica/download/TeBau.pdf and Esthetica_- and
> _On_aesthetics_aisthetics_and_sensation__reading_Baumgarten_
> with_Leibniz_with_Deleuze_-_2011-03-29[1].pdf by Birgit M. Kaiser.
>
> According to Baumgarten Aesthetics may be summarized in the following
> definition (quoted from Baumgarten): Aesthetics (as the theory of liberal
> arts, as gnoseology of the inferior faculties, as the art of thinking in a
> beautiful way, as the art of thinking analogous to reason) is the science
> of sensate cognition.
>
> In my most recent research on the subject I learn that during the XIX
> century the word was repelled from English elites. See for instance: The
> British Aesthetic Tradition: From Shaftesbury to Wittgenstein
> By Timothy M. Costelloe (find it in google books) Apparently Sir William
> Hamilton even suggested that the term Apolaustic should be applied instead
> of Aesthetics. But he gave his own definition of Baumgartian Aesthetics as:
> (…) the doctrine which we vaguely and periphrastically denominate The
> Philosophy of Taste, the theory of the Fine Arts, The Science of the Beauty
> and the Sublime, &c” (p. 3)
> The firs course named “Aesthetics” was taught by Jorge Santayana in
> Harvard in the end of that century. https://plato.stanford.edu/
> entries/santayana/#2 . I presume that most of our American colleagues
> opinions on Aesthetics derive from his book “The Sense of Beauty” (forty
> years before Dewey’s "Art as Experience". Whereas Aesthetics in the
> Baumgartian was mostly and Intelectual endeavor, Santayana (one of the
> fathers of Naturalism) may have introduced a definition of Aesthetics more
> “naturalistic” that become coherent with the American Pragmatism of William
> James and gang.
> Nevertheless, Aesthetics took two paths (maybe in a forklift road), one
> related with Psychology, in fact a philosophy of taste, (rooted in
> Naturalism), the other related with Art as the theory of the Fine Arts
> (rooted in Intellectualism).
>
> However, the initial project was Baumgarten’s one.
>
> Best regards,
> Eduardo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Esra Bici
Endüstri Ürünleri Tasarimcisi
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|