This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aesthetics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Hello Johnbod, I removed the recently added picture from the lead because it is not very representative of the topic "aesthetics". It shows 3 people from the back. It is not seen what they are looking at: are they admiring art or an ancient fossil, or are they just bored? It also shows one apparently unrelated person from the front. Being representative of the topic is a requirement for images in the lead, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. I saw that you restored the picture with the justification that "well we want something in the lead. find a better pic if you like". There is no requirement for an article to have a picture. And there is also no requirement for an editor who removes a problematic part from an article to replace it with something else. I'm not against having a proper picture here. But this particular picture does not constitute an improvement to the article. So I suggest that we remove this recently added picture again. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi CactiStaccingCrane and thanks for joining the conversation and for bringing in new suggestions.
For picture 1: it seems that the cube is standing in the background and the person is just walking past it. If that's the case then the same objection applies here as well: not very representative.
For picture 2: I agree with Johnbold that this is not the best representation either, but at least it manages to get the basic message across: two people looking at art. I would suggest that we keep this until something better comes along, unless there are other suggestions.
As a side note to Johnbod concerning the removal: the talk page is for keeping up the discussion to work towards a consensus. If arguments are presented and no objections or responses are raised within a reasonable amount of time, that constitutes silence by consensus, see Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
english 115.147.53.244 (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Beauty in form of art makes us appreciate it 105.113.19.163 (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
we have a red link to Machine aesthetic. Is it a definable concept? If not, then the redirect should be done or red links to be unlinked Estopedist1 (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
What is aesthetic? Relation of Nature and social aesthetic?
39.33.106.29 (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Aesthetics and philosophy of art has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30 § Aesthetics and philosophy of art until a consensus is reached. - car chasm (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Aesthetics of art has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30 § Aesthetics of art until a consensus is reached. - car chasm (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Kalology has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30 § Kalology until a consensus is reached. - car chasm (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Beautiful language has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30 § Beautiful language until a consensus is reached. - car chasm (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Ethestics has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30 § Ethestics until a consensus is reached. - car chasm (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Being Beautiful in Spirit has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30 § Being Beautiful in Spirit until a consensus is reached. - car chasm (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Æsthetic has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30 § Æsthetic until a consensus is reached. - car chasm (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Esthetical has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30 § Esthetical until a consensus is reached. - car chasm (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Esthetically has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30 § Esthetically until a consensus is reached. - car chasm (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Æsthetically has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30 § Æsthetically until a consensus is reached. - car chasm (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: WITHDRAWN per WP:SNOW: no support for move, and other issues with incoming links are more important and will need to be addressed separately regardless. - car chasm (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC) - car chasm (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Aesthetics → Philosophical aesthetics – I've moved the page Aesthetics to "Philosophical aesthetics" which is a more exact name for this field of study and updated the redirects. Given the sheer number of incoming links that had nothing to do with the subject of this page, I felt justified in doing so WP:BOLDLY, but was asked to open a move request by @Brandmeister:, mea culpa for doing this out of process - it seems clear that people use this word to mean much more than just the branch of philosophy, so that is not a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The original target page of "Aesthetics" should probably also be made into a dab instead of a redirect at some point, but many of the page links seem to have no appropriate target whatsoever so I'm going through and unwikilinking and copyediting anything where the use of the word "aesthetics" is filler text first, repointing other links as necessary, while keeping the redirect so as to not break links which this page is also a legitimate target of, which are also numerous. - car chasm (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC) - car chasm (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Aesthetic philosopher has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30 § Aesthetic philosopher until a consensus is reached. - car chasm (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Aesthetics and the philosophy of art has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 30 § Aesthetics and the philosophy of art until a consensus is reached. - car chasm (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The redirect Being beautiful in spirit has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 31 § Being beautiful in spirit until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I removed a big chunk of text describing the theory of Schmidhuber, which felt disproportionate. If anyone is planning to write an article about this topic I'll copy it here for future reference.
In the 1990s, Jürgen Schmidhuber described an algorithmic theory of beauty. This theory takes the subjectivity of the observer into account and postulates that among several observations classified as comparable by a given subjective observer, the most aesthetically pleasing is the one that is encoded by the shortest description. He uses the differences between these lengths to account for subjective differences between the aesthetic tastes of different observers, as one's ability to efficiently describe an observation is based on their particular mental method of encoding data and the proximity of the observation to the subject's prior knowledge. The theory is inspired by principles of algorithmic information theory, especially minimum description length, which prefers mathematical models that use the least information to describe data. As an example, Schmidhuber notes that mathematicians tend to aesthetically prefer simple proofs with a short description in their formal language. Another concrete example describes an aesthetically pleasing human face whose proportions can be described by very few bits of information, drawing inspiration from less detailed 15th century proportion studies by Leonardo da Vinci and Albrecht Dürer. Schmidhuber's theory explicitly distinguishes between that which is beautiful and that which is interesting, stating that interestingness corresponds to the first derivative of subjectively perceived beauty. He supposes that every observer continually tries to improve the predictability and compressibility of their observations by identifying regularities like repetition, symmetry, and fractal self-similarity. Whenever the observer's learning process (which may be a predictive artificial neural network) leads to improved data compression such that the observation sequence can be described by fewer bits than before, the temporary interestingness of the data corresponds to the number of saved bits. This compression progress is proportional to the observer's internal reward, also called curiosity reward. A reinforcement learning algorithm is used to maximize future expected reward by learning to execute action sequences that cause additional interesting input data with yet unknown but learnable predictability or regularity. The principles can be implemented on artificial agents which then exhibit a form of artificial curiosity. Apoptheosis (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
'sdf Computer code
' 2400:1A00:B050:95D5:1CB:86FB:BC:84C (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)