[ddarko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordbest

Aesthetic functionalism (a hugely complex and contradictory philosophy) broadly states that an objects aesthetic value is derived from how well it functions. You are arguing that the function of the superhero costume is to convey superheroics, and that it should be judged solely on that criteria. That is a functionalist argument. The contradiction is that you are putting forward a functionalist argument, while attacking functionalism.

Aah, I see where the confusion has arisen.

Functionalism is not the position that it attributes some function to the field of art. Rather, it is the position that an art design itself must be solely based on functionality! So put it another way, attributing a function to the field of art is not either for or against functionalism. Did this clarify?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordbest

If by "made up" you mean I sat down and thought about the sort of things I like and why I like them, then yes. That is the very essence of aesthetic appreciation. Figuring out what we like and why.....

Well, what you are essentially telling me is that you have embraced the functionalist view for aesthetic appreciation. My objection is that you were wrong to even embrace it in the first place. It is by your embracing of it that you have reduced art to merely the whims of the individual. This might seem great at first, but ultimately, it is meaningless because your whims change. Your whims today are not the same you will have tomorrow.

In short, the person who evaluates art on such a subjective notion is only fooling themselves. The ones who purchases art based on such notions are wasting money because when their taste changes, they can no longer appreciate the art. Why? Because their initial appreciation was never grounded in anything real. They were all merely stuff he/she arbitrarily made up in their mind at the time of purchase.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordbest

YES. EXACTLY. That is literally what I and others who like the costume are saying. We like it, because to us it is better than the old one. We are not claiming it is objectively better, because objectivity is impossible. You are claiming we are wrong, we are not claiming you are wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordbest

Yes, they did become the language of superhero costumes, they weren't always though, and they aren't universally. That language, like all language, is changing and adapting as the tastes of the user (in this case the comic reader) change.

Aah, its too much to get into on a toy forum, BUT, these are indeed things that can be discussed quiet a lot.

Can language change? Yes! However, the problem with coming up with a new language is that it is most likely that not everyone will know how to read it. If that is the case, is there a value to it as a language? A language must be judged on how well it can communicate and be understood by everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordbest

I'm not going to reply again, this is getting ridiculous and it's become sadly apparent that your knowledge of Aesthetics is insufficient to actually have an informed discussion about why your statement that taste is objective is utterly and demonstrably false.

Perhaps so. But I would like to point out that it may be just the case that you have embraced a notion of aesthetics that is also quiet meaningless. I am essentially saying that we must evaluate everything objectively. You are arguing that we should just evaluate according to your tastes at the time. One leads to a timeless appreciation of art. One leads to a "spur of the moment" appreciation of art. Which one would you prefer or consider superior?