It's nothing new this day and age, is what I meant.

Nietzsche famously proclaimed that “only as an aesthetic phenomenon is existence and the world eternally justified.” — praxis

How do you think Nietzsche intended this?

Aesthetics to counteract rationalization in society, essentially.

Aesthetics to counteract rationalization in society, essentially. — praxis

How would this work? Does Netflix count? :groan:

Nietzsche famously proclaimed that “only as an aesthetic phenomenon is existence and the world eternally justified.” — praxis

He said an aesthetics of production is needed because people only talk about the aesthetics of reception. — Jackson

Given his training as a philologist it seems likely than Nietzsche make the connection with the etymological meaning of aesthetic, to perceive, although no passage comes to mind in support of this. Perception is an act of will. That is, not simply what is passively given or received, but what is made, a creative act.

Given his training as a philologist it seems likely than Nietzsche make the connection with the etymological meaning of aesthetic, to perceive, although no passage comes to mind in support of this. Perception is an act of will. That is, not simply what is passively given or received, but what is made, a creative act. — Fooloso4

I cannot remember the section, I thought it was Will to Power. But he explicitly makes a distinction between the aesthetics of making art and reception of art.

I cannot remember the section, I thought it was Will to Power. But he explicitly makes a distinction between the aesthetics of making art and reception of art. — Jackson

“Schopenhauer made use of the Kantian version of the aesthetic problem, – although he definitely did not view it with Kantian eyes. Kant intended to pay art a tribute when he singled out from the qualities of beauty those which constitute the glory of knowledge: impersonality and universality. Whether or not this was essentially a mistake is not what I am dealing with here; all I want to underline is that Kant, like all philosophers, just considered art and beauty from the position of ‘spectator',instead of viewing the aesthetic problem through the experiences of the artist (the creator), and thus inadvertently introduced the ‘spectator'himself into the concept ‘beautiful'.” (Genealogy of Morality, third essay)

Schopenhauer made use of the Kantian version of the aesthetic problem, – although he definitely did not view it with Kantian eyes. Kant intended to pay art a tribute when he singled out from the qualities of beauty those which constitute the glory of knowledge: impersonality and universality. Whether or not this was essentially a mistake is not what I am dealing with here; all I want to underline is that Kant, like all philosophers, just considered art and beauty from the position of ‘spectator',instead of viewing the aesthetic problem through the experiences of the artist (the creator), and thus inadvertently introduced the ‘spectator'himself into the concept ‘beautiful'.” (Genealogy of Morality, third essay) — Joshs

Yeah, pretty good. I have been a practicing artist (painter) about 30 years and find Kant completely idiotic when he talks about art.

↪Joshs

It's nothing new this day and age, is what I meant. — praxis

Do you think Nietzsche’s ideas as a whole have been absorbed, at least by most atheistic thinkers?

. I have been a practicing artist (painter) about 30 years and find Kant completely idiotic when he talks about art. — Jackson

Well, we are 230 years removed from the 1790’s. Our best contemporary philosophy will probably look as idiotic a couple of centuries from now.

Well, we are 230 years removed from the 1790’s. Our best contemporary philosophy will probably look as idiotic a couple of centuries from now n — Joshs

No, I mean Kant was wrong when he wrote it. He barely mentions art works at all. Analytic aesthetics today still follows Kant.

This may be the section I was thinking about:
"3. the compulsion to imitate:
This is what distinguishes the artist from laymen (those susceptible to art): the latter reach the high. point of their susceptibility when they receive; the former as they give-so that an antagonism between these two gifts is not only natural but desirable. The perspectives of these two states are opposite: to
demand of the artist that he should practice the perspective of the audience (of the critic-) means to demand that he should impoverish himself and his creative power. Our aesthetics hitherto has been a woman's aestheticsto the extent that only the receivers of art have formulated their experience of "what is beautiful?" In all philosophy hitherto the artist is lacking."(Will to Power; #811)

How would this work? — Tom Storm

It doesn’t, but in theory it would be a movement away from materialistic rationalization (efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control) and towards well-being and meaning, but not capital M Meaning, because as the Neitch infamously said, God is dead.

No, I mean Kant was wrong when he wrote it. He barely mentions art works at all. Analytic aesthetics today still follows Kant. — Jackson

Are you familiar with the work of art critic Clement Greenberg, a promoter of abstract expressionism? I believe he was a Kantian. It’s interesting that certain formalist tendencies of the modernist period of art seem to be amenable to analysis in Kantian terms.Then Arthur Danto came along and replaced the Kantian approach with a Hegelian interpretation, which he applied to Warhol and pop art.

Do you think Nietzsche’s ideas as a whole have been absorbed, at least by most atheistic thinkers? — Joshs

I sincerely hope not.

Are you familiar with the work of art critic Clement Greenberg, a promoter of abstract expressionism? I believe he was a Kantian. It’s interesting that certain formalist tendencies of the modernist period of art seem to be amenable to analysis in Kantian terms. — Joshs

Yes, familiar. I have met Kantian art critics. They really have no idea what artists are actually doing.

I sincerely hope not. — praxis

That explains why you think he’s unoriginal

Yes, familiar. I have met Kantian art critics. — Jackson

What are the attributes of a Kantian art critic?

What are the attributes of a Kantian art critic? — Tom Storm

Formalism. They treat the art object as a physical object and try to derive properties from it.
Disinterest. They get art exactly backwards--it is because we are interested in the world that meaning comes about. Not despite it.
Universal judgment. They think 'subjectivity' is wrong and we must strive to universalize our judgments. Why should a work of art appeal to everybody?!
Beauty is fairly meaningless. Any beauty comes from content; there is no formal beauty.

That explains why you think he’s unoriginal — Joshs

??? I never said he was unoriginal.

??? I never said he was unoriginal. — praxis

You said his theory of art was unoriginal, and his theory of art is derived from his main thesis, Will to Power.

I just don’t see how this is in any way a radical idea. — praxis

It's nothing new this day and age, is what I meant. — praxis

Thanks.

You said his theory of art was unoriginal, and his theory of art is derived from his main thesis, Will to Power. — Joshs

I still don’t know what his theory of art is. Can you explain it?

Regarding aesthetics, people have been having sublime aesthetic experiences and transcending the duality of good and evil for thousands of years.

I still don’t know what his theory of art is. Can you explain it?

Regarding aesthetics, people have been having sublime aesthetic experiences and transcending the duality of good and evil for thousands of years. — praxis

One can’t understand his theory of art without first understanding his larger philosophical project, becuase the two are co-determinative.

Do you think Nietzsche’s ideas as a whole have been absorbed, at least by most atheistic thinkers?
— Joshs

I sincerely hope — praxis

You said you sincerely hope his ideas have not been absorbed by today’s atheistic thinkers, which implies that you have an understanding of his philosophy of Will to Power. Can you summarize what it consists of?

You said you sincerely hope his ideas have not been absorbed by today’s atheistic thinkers, which implies that you have an understanding of his philosophy of Will to Power. Can you summarize what it consists of? — Joshs

I’m skeptical if even the Neitch himself could do that to everyone’s satisfaction. I also suspect that may be by design.

One can’t understand his theory of art without first understanding his larger philosophical project, becuase the two are co-determinative. — Joshs

Of course art is related to aesthetics but we’re really talking about aesthetics, right?