 |
 |
Dear friends, Colleagues, Like in many other occasions, Art is here confused with beauty. Or Beauty, capital. Although Beauty may have been a vehicle for achieving artistic goals, it should not be confused with what art unveils. Art unveils, firstly, originality, authorship and indisputable uniqueness. Often we witness that experts are called to establish authorship and dating regarding works of art. Ugly, beautiful or simply indifferent, works of art strike us as tokens of human production that strive above indifference and ask for a meaningful reception. In that sense, regardless of its beauty, Art, for Design, meaningfully unveils that, even in everyday live objects, there might be a realm where originality, authorship and uniqueness, might find a way into people’s lives. Cheers, Eduardo Corte-Real IADE- U, lisbon > No dia 08/10/2015, às 18:53, Filippo Salustri <[log in to unmask]> escreveu: > > On 8 October 2015 at 09:12, Punya Mishra <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> I would argue that this perspective of putting beauty (or color) totally >> in the mind, misses the point. >> >> Bob State retired professor of educational research at UIUC once wrote: >> "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but inseparable from the flower" and >> succinctly, I think captured the transactional nature of ideas such as >> color, and beauty. That these can be both a property of the object AND in >> our heads. In other words, it can both be constructed by our brains AND >> influenced by the world out there. >> > > Missing the point suggests there's only 1 point to miss. Perhaps there are > more. I think there are. > > There's no question that the experience of beauty is an internal construct > - something in the mind. But there's also no question that the experience > must come from somewhere. If the experience is a result of some perception > (seeing a "beautiful" flower), makes it clear that the experience, while > located in the mind, is an emergent phenomenon of the system including the > beholder and the object beheld. For cases where a thought that one has > (that is, an object beheld that is itself already a mental construct) is > considered beautiful, I think it's basically the same thing: the thought is > the result of mental phenomena that ultimately rest of memories of > experiences. > > IMHO, of course. > > \V/_ /fas > > *Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.* > Email: [log in to unmask] > http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/ > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------