Nope, it has a lot to do with orderliness and uniformity. And sometimes with downright stupidity. In some communities the use of astro-turf is forbidden, even though the “real” grass is inferior.
Yes, because there is a large supply of empty canvasses “out there”.
Indeed, but not in the sense as you imagine.
Sharp and blunt are relative terms. The same knife which is “sharp enough” to cut one material, is “too blunt” to cut another one. Just like “heavy” and “light”. The same objective weight (expressed in pounds) can be too heavy for one person and very light for another one. Or “close” as opposed to “far”… the examples are endless. In each case there might be an objective number which describes attribute in question, but this value says nothing about how an individual perceives that attribute.
You can assemble 1,00 people on a beach front property in Florida to welcome the sun as it rises above the horizon. You will hardly find a person who thinks the event is not stunningly beautiful and all thousand people great the dawn with applause. Only blind people might abstain. This can be viewed as religious beauty, since the Creator is a greater artist than anyone on Earth.
Why would orderliness and uniformity be “preferred” to mayhem and unsightly clutter? Why not base laws upon those qualities?
Relative to the task and objectively so.
Yes, that is the claim you keep making but we have no reason for thinking it is true and many reasons for thinking it is false.
And those who have seen it hundreds of times, and could not be bothered to get up to see it again.
Things are usually considered more appealing when we are exposed to it many times. I tried to steer you in the proper direction when I made a short reference to the different oblongs and which ratio is the most appealing to most people. The ratio of “1.618… to 1” is nothing intrinsically “special” and still, most people find it appealing. I was curious if you will ponder it and either realize the reason, or ask about it. Too bad it was another “wasted effort” on my side. But I am already accustomed to it.
Of course. I was not talking about instruments, rather our relationship to the instruments along with our assessment of those instruments . You are still mixing apples and oranges.
Still you could not bring up any arguments for your opinion. I gave you a very detailed explanation about the “taste of the salty fish”, and you did not even acknowledged it. Why is that? The “weight” of an object is objective, the “heaviness” is not. And that is the point I want to explain to you.
I will happily trade you an empty canvas for your vandalized one, but I doubt you would go for it.
The vandalism would still be the same. It was your nonsense to talk about overpainting a Rembrandt. I challenged you to do your painting on an empty canvas, and submit it to a “beauty contest” to see if that painting would merit a “praise”. You keep changing the subject in pretty much every post you make. Rather boring, I say.
You can assemble 1,00 people on a beach front property in Florida to welcome the sun as it rises above the horizon. You will hardly find a person who thinks the event is not stunningly beautiful and all thousand people great the dawn with applause. Only blind people might abstain. This can be viewed as religious beauty, since the Creator is a greater artist than anyone on Earth.
Does the opinion of the majority not count for something as far as the individual is concerned?
Would he not question whether he has missed something that the vast majority have seen?
Moreover much beauty has objective features, such as the Golden Ratio, and can be explained scientifically. Some fascinating examples are given here:You are on exceptionally tricky ground here, Charles. Do you really want to suggest that if a majority of people find something beautiful (or interesting or exciting or worth watching or…dare we say correct?) then does not that count for something?You can assemble 1,00 people on a beach front property in Florida to welcome the sun as it rises above the horizon. You will hardly find a person who thinks the event is not stunningly beautiful and all thousand people great the dawn with applause. Only blind people might abstain. This can be viewed as religious beauty, since the Creator is a greater artist than anyone on Earth.
Does the opinion of the majority not count for something as far as the individual is concerned?
Would he not question whether he has missed something that the vast majority have seen?
FYI, no two sunrises are the same, unless you have a certain sunrise taped over your window, which I believe could get boring.
So what am I to make of a young and smart aficionado of science who has ready plenty of Carl Sagan and nothing by Einstein or Newton. Suppose he thinks Sagan must be the great scientific mind because he can understand Sagan. But he thinks Einstein and Newton don’t matter so much even if all the world thinks they do because what the world thinks really doesn’t matter. Ought he not to examine well his own worthless opinion, and what am I to think of such a worthless numbskull?
Been there, done it, have a t-shirt to prove it. You think that the subjective opinion of many people will elevate it to an objective status. Of course many people think that the sunrise or the sunset are beautiful. But some people will find a thunderstorm with heavy lightning also beautiful, while others are simply scared of it. Some people get “attracted” to some gruesome, and macabre spectacles, like slowing down to see the blood and bones coming from highway accidents. They do not find it “beautiful”, but they are drawn to such sights.
I’m suggesting that what everyone agrees with is not necessarily true. Are you trying to make the case that if someone has a diiferent opinion it therefore has equal validity?
You’re in very dangerous territory, Charlie…
Our ignorance does the job at the very end.
A) Experience a phenomena/anomaly which shows our ignorance to the subject matter
A) There exists an objective reality
Well yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but there has to be something objectively beautiful for the eye to behold. No?