- This topic has 6 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
My class has recently been reading writings of various philosophers or quasi-philosophers who lived during the latter half of the 18th Century/early 19th Century who comment on aesthetics. The class has noticed that the writers appear to be commenting on areas in ways rather peculiar to our mindsets. It has been mentioned that these writers are generally wealthy men who don't have much to do with their time and therefore publish their thoughts on topics…a kind of work in aristocratic thought, if you will. Do you think this is true? In other words, people who had time to philosophize about aesthetics were generally rich enough so they didn't have to work on the same schedule as commoners, and perhaps they even tended toward elitism in their thoughts about what constituted “beauty”, “taste”, or related concepts. While we have read from writings from a few different people, perhaps the only one people here would recognize is Edmund Burke. Any thoughts?
I think it boils down to men who are wealthy but have time on their hands like de Sade, and people who have an axe to grinde like Voltaire. Then there are people in search of ideals like Jefferson or who desire social reforms like Dickens. Then again trying to create molds for philosophers is always a risky business.
Any thoughts?
Very much what I've discovered as well; we don't see much from the common man until later when literacy really takes hold and the middle class begins in earnest.Today however (the last 50 years or so) as mass meda really kicks in we see lots more. Witness the internet; webpages, blog, forums... Warhol's 15 minutes of fame on the web. MHO.
I think it boils down to men who are wealthy but have time on their hands like de Sade, and people who have an axe to grinde like Voltaire. Then there are people in search of ideals like Jefferson or who desire social reforms like Dickens. Then again trying to create molds for philosophers is always a risky business.
Agreed.
I'm going to take a stab at this thread…I agree with the concept of wealth & time but I'm also wondering if the manner in which society was set up during those eras compared to present day has any bearing? For instance, education isn't a dividing factor anymore. Everyone goes to school and of course, it's totally up to the individual to take the tools they're provided with and make of them what they chose to but in essence, we're all given the same opportunities. Society isn't divided along the lines of hierarchy and we're not expected to show deference.
I'm going to take a stab at this thread...I agree with the concept of wealth & time but I'm also wondering if the manner in which society was set up during those eras compared to present day has any bearing? For instance, education isn't a dividing factor anymore. Everyone goes to school and of course, it's totally up to the individual to take the tools they're provided with and make of them what they chose to but in essence, we're all given the same opportunities. Society isn't divided along the lines of hierarchy and we're not expected to show deference.
Agreed. Yet America is more divided now than at any other time since the Civil War. We are divided on wealth, religion, race, gender, and ideology. The fissures really started to open during the Vietnam Era and haven't healed since.
Yes, I have to concur with you and you're examples totally escaped me until your post. I failed to think through what is going on in our society now. Unless this idea is already a thread I have yet to find, discussing the Vietnam Era is of interest to me as it was only a three line mention in my history book during high school.
I’m going to respond to my original post by saying that it’s really not all that surprising that the aristocracy would be commenting on aesthetics in the eighteenth/nineteenth centuries because they could comment on aesthetics. The poor and the laboring masses would have either had less education and been unable to do so, or been unable to devote time enough to philosophize on such issues. In addition, the rich of the time would have had more artistic context because of the popularity of the Grand Tour during this period of history.
The ramifications are also interesting. If the idle rich are able to comment on aesthetics, and have the resources to commission new works, it means that select members of the aristocracy drive the appearance of the created world for blocks of history. When we look back on history and the leftover artifacts and buildings of yesteryear, we are not necessarily seeing an accurate picture of how people lived or what they thought, but instead how certain members lived or thought.
There’s also a lesson for us today in all of this. Some social or political issues become the pet causes of wealthy celebrities. While it’s admirable that they feel moved to engage in social action, it can be very dangerous when the social action is actually counter-productive to the common good.
There’s also the danger of elitism. A wealthy celebrity may be able to influence the creation of policy and the creation of new laws, but will not necessarily have to suffer the consequences of those laws. Adding a tax on travel to protect the environment might be the pet cause of the wealthy elite, but it’s pretty certain that those same elites will not feel the pain of higher travel costs. The pain will be most absorbed by the masses.
