I personally agree with you and am skeptical of the value of “classical” aesthetics, but maybe not for the same reasons.
I guess it was downvoted because “enlightenment” is what people wanted.
I didn’t downvote or upvote the post because it is not clear to me what you are saying, what are enlightenment issues? You could give concrete examples to help.
EDIT: Oh, I read the parent comment, it was downvoted because you brought in race and stuff unnecessarily. I think this is bad and suggests an underlying ideology that I personally don’t like because I think it produces misguided perspectives, and discussing this is unpromising.
I have a mental write up about this with a vision that makes the points:
Classical/neoclassical has been done forever, has been associated with authoritarianism.
Romanticism and other modern aesthetics have value.
The best scenario is for EA to build its own aesthetic entirely, literally, driving a new age of thought, energy and initiative
Aesthetics has instrumental value as a device to approach key populations EA has to look into the future for—in contrast, appealing to philosophers and it’s existing group is sort of exactly the opposite, unnecessary and leaves most value on the table.
Aesthetics gives an immense vehicle for change and correction, even more powerful/deeper than the post suggests.
It’s not at all like a “theme” for the forum or web pages or just a style of writing.
All aesthetics have to be remixing to some degree IMO, there’s no such thing as a fully new aesthetic that isn’t classical/retro/etc. in some sense. But otherwise yeah I agree with most of your points (except that classical really isn’t inherently tied to authoritarianism; it’s at least as much linked to liberalism and democracy!)
except that classical really isn’t inherently tied to authoritarianism; it’s at least as much linked to liberalism and democracy
Yes, classical is not inherently authoritarian, it’s more like people (read: hacks) used a lot of columns and other aesthetics from this, because they basically lack creativity.
This historical pattern makes this aesthetic less desirable and stale, in an abundant environment of talent and creativity when EA could do anything, so the bar is high.
Fascist styles often resemble that of ancient Rome, but can extend to modern aesthetics as well. Fascist-era buildings are frequently constructed with particular concern given to symmetry and simplicity.
Both Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler utilised new styles of architecture (variations of Rationalism, and Stripped Classicism respectively) as one of many attempts to unify the citizens of their states, mark a new era of nationalist culture, and exhibit the absolute rule of the state.
Socialist realism is a style of idealized realistic art that was developed in the Soviet Union and was the official style in that country between 1932 and 1988, as well as in other socialist countries after World War II...
Despite its name, the figures in the style are very often highly idealized, especially in sculpture, where it often leans heavily on the conventions of classical sculpture.
Adding more not to defend myself, but to keep the conversation going:
I think that many Enlightenment ideas are great and valid regardless of their creators’ typical-for-their-time ideas.
Education increasingly includes rather radical components of critical race theory. Students are taught that if someone is racist, then all of their political and philosophical views are tainted. By extension, many people learn that the Enlightenment itself is tainted. Like Charles, I think that this “produces misguided perspectives”.
I’m—apparently badly—trying to communicate the following. These students, who have been taught that the Enlightenment is tainted by association with racism, who (reasonably!) haven’t bothered to thoroughly research this particular historical movement to come to their own conclusions, who may totally make great EAs, would initially be turned off.
It’s quite plausible that it shouldn’t be the case that Enlightenment aesthetics might turn people off. But I think this is the case, and I argue that it’s likely more important to make a good first impression than to take a stand in favor of a particular historical movement.
Could someone who downvoted please explain which of these premises you disagree with?
I personally agree with you and am skeptical of the value of “classical” aesthetics, but maybe not for the same reasons.
I guess it was downvoted because “enlightenment” is what people wanted.
I didn’t downvote or upvote the post because it is not clear to me what you are saying, what are enlightenment issues? You could give concrete examples to help.
EDIT: Oh, I read the parent comment, it was downvoted because you brought in race and stuff unnecessarily. I think this is bad and suggests an underlying ideology that I personally don’t like because I think it produces misguided perspectives, and discussing this is unpromising.
I have a mental write up about this with a vision that makes the points:
Classical/neoclassical has been done forever, has been associated with authoritarianism.
Romanticism and other modern aesthetics have value.
The best scenario is for EA to build its own aesthetic entirely, literally, driving a new age of thought, energy and initiative
Aesthetics has instrumental value as a device to approach key populations EA has to look into the future for—in contrast, appealing to philosophers and it’s existing group is sort of exactly the opposite, unnecessary and leaves most value on the table.
Aesthetics gives an immense vehicle for change and correction, even more powerful/deeper than the post suggests.
It’s not at all like a “theme” for the forum or web pages or just a style of writing.
All aesthetics have to be remixing to some degree IMO, there’s no such thing as a fully new aesthetic that isn’t classical/retro/etc. in some sense. But otherwise yeah I agree with most of your points (except that classical really isn’t inherently tied to authoritarianism; it’s at least as much linked to liberalism and democracy!)
Yes, classical is not inherently authoritarian, it’s more like people (read: hacks) used a lot of columns and other aesthetics from this, because they basically lack creativity.
This historical pattern makes this aesthetic less desirable and stale, in an abundant environment of talent and creativity when EA could do anything, so the bar is high.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_architecture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_realism
Thanks very much, that helps!
Adding more not to defend myself, but to keep the conversation going:
I think that many Enlightenment ideas are great and valid regardless of their creators’ typical-for-their-time ideas.
Education increasingly includes rather radical components of critical race theory. Students are taught that if someone is racist, then all of their political and philosophical views are tainted. By extension, many people learn that the Enlightenment itself is tainted. Like Charles, I think that this “produces misguided perspectives”.
I’m—apparently badly—trying to communicate the following. These students, who have been taught that the Enlightenment is tainted by association with racism, who (reasonably!) haven’t bothered to thoroughly research this particular historical movement to come to their own conclusions, who may totally make great EAs, would initially be turned off.
It’s quite plausible that it shouldn’t be the case that Enlightenment aesthetics might turn people off. But I think this is the case, and I argue that it’s likely more important to make a good first impression than to take a stand in favor of a particular historical movement.
Hope that makes sense!