Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/15

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] What is fine art photography?
From: Krechtz@aol.com
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:14:41 EST

In a message dated 12/15/00 11:46:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
imagist@concentric.net writes:

<< howard.390@osu.edu (Martin Howard)12/14/004:05 PM
 
 > I am so sick of people constantly mistaking "aesthetics" for
 "beauty".
 > You'd think that those working on the staff of a dictionary
 would know
 > better!
 
 I don't mean to sound pedantic, but it seems when we discuss
 issues such as "what is?" we need to start with some agreement on
 definitions of terms. And I thought The American Heritage
 dictionary of the English Language may offer a foundation on
 which to build our understanding of the terms which we use. It
 would seem that the staff of this dictionary certainly sees some
 strong relationship between aesthetics and beauty. And 99% of the
 time - I do as well. I do love dictionaries and language.
 
 aes0thet0ic or es0thet0ic (Rs-thRt2ľk) adj.
 1. Relating to the philosophy or theories of aesthetics.
 2. Of or concerning the appreciation of beauty or good taste: the
 aesthetic faculties.
                        <<SLASH & BURN>>

    It would certainly seem appropriate to distinguish between the concept of 
beauty and the study, understanding, criticism or appreciation of beauty, as 
the dictionary definitions implicitly do.  If the quoted language from the 
original  post is properly to be construed as an objection to the use of 
terms such as "beauty" and "aesthetics" as pure sysnonyms, the point is well 
taken.  If that is not the point, it might be necessary to review the entire 
original post in order to understand the snippet quoted.

Pedantically,
Joe Sobel