DOCSLIB.ORG

4.1 Aesthetics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
4.1 Aesthetics Environmental Impact Analysis Aesthetics 4.1 Aesthetics This section analyzes the proposed Specific Plan’s impacts related to aesthetics, including the existing visual character of and scenic views in the Specific Plan Area and whether development associated with the proposed Specific Plan would adversely affect scenic resources or introduce new sources of light or glare. 4.1.1 Setting a. Visual Character Most of San Leandro is developed. The City is bordered by Castro Valley on the east, San Francisco Bay on the west, the City of Oakland to the north and the unincorporated Alameda County communities of San Lorenzo and Ashland to the south. The City is situated along three major freeways, the MacArthur (I-580) Freeway, Nimitz (I-880) Freeway, and Interstate 238 (I-238). The predominant land use in San Leandro includes well-defined suburban neighborhoods. Residential, recreational, and open space uses are located in proximity to the shoreline along the western side of San Leandro, and residential uses also surround the industrial areas south of Marina Boulevard and west of I-880 (City of San Leandro, 2016a). Building heights within residential, commercial, and industrial areas generally range from one to two stories and are often surrounded by yards and wide streets. In comparison, building heights in the major activity centers of San Leandro can be up to five stories. Industrial and commercial areas are primarily visually occupied by parking and storage uses, with industrial buildings as proximate visual landmarks (City of San Leandro, 2016a). The Specific Plan Area encompasses 154 acres situated at the eastern edge of San Leandro, adjacent to unincorporated Alameda County, and generally encompasses land within the City limits located within one-half mile of the Bay Fair BART station. This area contains prominent retail facilities and corridors including the Bayfair Center, East 14th Street and Hesperian Boulevard corridors, as well as some residential neighborhoods. The Specific Plan Area is an urbanized area with a mix of residential, commercial and public/semi-public development while the surrounding terrain is relatively flat and characterized by single family neighborhoods. Development in this area currently consists primarily of post-war era commercial development along East 14th Street, scattered single- and multiple-family residences along Hesperian Boulevard, including a mobile home park, and several 60-year-old shopping centers largely covered by surface parking lots and driveways. The major corridors of East 14th Street, Hesperian Boulevard and Fairmont Drive contain a variety of strip and one- to three-story stand-alone commercial buildings that bear little visual relationship to one another. East 14th Street, Hesperian Boulevard and Fairmont Drive also have sidewalks that are generally lined with street trees, and Fairmont Drive has planting strips along both the east- and west-bound sides between its intersections with East 14th Street and Hesperian Boulevard. Views of existing conditions within the Specific Plan Area are shown in Figure 8a-Figure 8h. As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, the Specific Plan divides the Specific Plan Area into 13 subareas: ten primarily commercial subareas, one transit subarea, and two subareas with a mix of residential and commercial uses, as shown in the Plan Area Overview in Chapter 1 of the Specific Plan. Detailed descriptions of the current land uses within the subareas are provided in Section 2, Project Description, of this EIR. Draft Environmental Impact Report 59 City of San Leandro Bay Fair Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan Figure 8a View Looking South along Hesperian Boulevard near Thornally Drive Figure 8b View Looking North along Hesperian Boulevard near Fairmont Drive 60 Environmental Impact Analysis Aesthetics Figure 8c Retail Stores in the Fairmont Square Shopping Center Figure 8d Retail Stores at Bayfair Center Shopping Mall Draft Environmental Impact Report 61 City of San Leandro Bay Fair Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan Figure 8e View of Estudillo Canal near Movie Theater Figure 8f View of the Bay Fair BART Station 62 Environmental Impact Analysis Aesthetics Figure 8g View of Residences at Intersection of East 14th Street and Thrust Avenue Figure 8h View Looking South along East 14th Street near 152nd Avenue Draft Environmental Impact Report 63 City of San Leandro Bay Fair Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan b. Views and Scenic Resources The City’s 2035 General Plan identifies the primary significant views within San Leandro as those looking west to the San Francisco Bay from the shoreline and from the hills above the I-580 Freeway, and views looking east to the hills near the I-580 Freeway and to the foothills from hills near the I-580 Freeway (City of San Leandro 2016b). The 2035 General Plan does not identify significant views within the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area, but does identify several areas in proximity to the Specific Plan Area as major City gateways as shown in Figure 9. Major gateways near the Specific Plan Area include the 150th Avenue/Hesperian Boulevard/East 14th Street intersection, the section of Hesperian Boulevard between the Bay Fair BART Station tracks and the Hayward station tracks, and the section of East 14th Street between Fairmont Avenue and 159th Avenue. However, these gateways are not considered scenic resources or vistas under the 2035 General Plan. The main public views of the Specific Plan Area are from the East 14th Street and Hesperian Boulevard corridors and are primarily of the adjacent commercial and residential development in the 13 subareas. Private residences along East 14th Street, Hesperian Boulevard and Coelho Drive also have views of urban development within the Specific Plan Area. There are some views of nearby hillsides through street corridors, such as from 150th Avenue which provides intermittent views of the hills in Lake Chabot Regional Park approximately one mile northeast of the Specific Plan Area, and from East 14th Street which provides intermittent views of the East Bay hills approximately 16 miles northeast of the Specific Plan Area, among others. No views of the San Francisco Bay or the shoreline are available from or through the Specific Plan Area. The portion of the I-580 Freeway within the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area is listed as an eligible State Scenic highway by Caltrans, but has not been officially designated as a scenic highway (Caltrans 2011). The location of the I-580 in relation to the Specific Plan Area is shown in Figure 10. At its nearest point to the Specific Plan Area, I-580 is located approximately 2,000 feet to the northeast of East 14th Street. Section 17.104.090 of the Municipal Code defines the I-580 Freeway’s scenic corridor as extending up to 90 feet from the highway. There are few visual resources within the Specific Plan Area. No historic resources have been identified within this area; the terrain is relatively flat and free of rock outcroppings; and trees are generally limited to street trees and ornamental trees in and around parking lots and adjacent to buildings. The City contains a number of heritage redwood trees; however, none are located within the Specific Plan Area. Street trees within the Specific Plan Area are generally present on landscaped outskirt areas that surround the commercial centers along East 14th Street, Hesperian Boulevard, and Fairmont Drive, and also line the streets near the residential uses along the East 14th Street and Hesperian Boulevard corridors. c. Light and Glare The Specific Plan Area is urban in character and currently has high nighttime light levels due to streetlights on East 14th Street, Hesperian Boulevard, Fairmont Boulevard, and around the Bay Fair BART Station, as well as exterior lights at adjacent commercial uses and residences. Headlights from motor vehicles traveling through the Specific Plan Area also contribute to nighttime lighting. Glare is primarily a daytime phenomenon, caused by sunlight reflecting from structures (including windows), roadways, and cars. However, glare can also be created at night by vehicle headlights. Land uses in the Specific Plan Area that would be most sensitive to night lighting and glare are residences located adjacent to East 14th Street, Hesperian Boulevard, and Coelho Drive. 64 Environmental Impact Analysis Aesthetics Figure 9 San Leandro Significant Views and Gateways Draft Environmental Impact Report 65 City of San Leandro Bay Fair Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Specific Plan Figure 10 Eligible State Scenic Highway Proximity 66 Environmental Impact Analysis Aesthetics d. Regulatory Setting State Regulations California Scenic Highway Program Through enforcement of the California Scenic Highway Program, Caltrans protects State scenic highway corridors from changes which would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to the highways. However, Caltrans has not designated a State scenic highway within San Leandro. The closest scenic highway is the section of the I-580 Freeway starting at the northern border of San Leandro and extending north to State Route 24 in Oakland (Caltrans 2011). As discussed under Section 4.1.1(b) above, the portion of the I-580 Freeway within the vicinity of the Specific Plan Area is listed as an eligible State Scenic Highway but has not been officially designated as such. Local Regulations San Leandro 2035 General Plan In accordance with California Government Code Section 65454, no specific plan may be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the general plan. The City’s 2035 General Plan included provisions for the development of the Bay Fair TOD Plan Area in its 2002 update. The 2035 General Plan establishes a land use designation of Bay Fair TOD Zoning District (B- TOD) for the entirety of the Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan Area, deferring to the Specific Plan process to establish the details of land use, design, and development for the area.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Norms of Belief and Norms of Assertion in Aesthetics
    Philosophers’ volume 15, no. 6 1. Introduction Imprint february 2015 1.1 Aesthetics and assertion It is a noteworthy feature of our discourse concerning aesthetic value that certain kinds of assertion — unproblematic in most other domains — are typically ruled as impermissible. I can legitimately assert that post-boxes in Canada are red, Justin Bieber’s sophomore Norms of Belief and album lasts a little over thirty-eight minutes, and arsenic is extremely poisonous, even though I have never seen, heard, or imbibed the relevant items. In contrast, utterances such as ‘The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is an extremely moving film’ (Lackey 2011: 257) and ‘It’s such Norms of Assertion in a wonderful novel; insightful and moving, with the most beautiful and bewitching language’ (Robson 2012: 4), appear extremely problematic in the mouth of someone who has not experienced the works in question for themselves.1 Aesthetics This contrast may initially seem rather prosaic, but it has recently been employed in arguments intended to motivate a number of significant philosophical claims. These arguments typically begin by taking such examples as license for the general claim that it is illegitimate to make assertions concerning the aesthetic properties of an object in the absence of first-hand experience of the object itself. Thus Mary Mothersill claims that ‘the judgment of taste (speech act) presupposes, through the avowal that it implicates, first-person knowledge of the object judged’ (1994: 160). Simon Blackburn states Jon Robson that if ‘I have no experience of X, I cannot without misrepresentation University of Nottingham answer the question ‘Is X beautiful/boring/fascinating…?’’ (1998: 110), and others — such as Jennifer Lackey (2011: 157–8) and Keren Gorodeisky (2010: 53) — make comments in a similar vein.
    [Show full text]
  • Paths from the Philosophy of Art to Everyday Aesthetics
    Paths from the Philosophy of Art to Everyday Aesthetics Edited by Oiva Kuisma, Sanna Lehtinen and Harri Mäcklin Paths from the Philosophy of Art to Everyday Aesthetics © 2019 Authors Cover and graphic design Kimmo Nurminen ISBN 978-952-94-1878-7 PATHS FROM THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART TO EVERYDAY AESTHETICS Eds. Oiva Kuisma, Sanna Lehtinen and Harri Mäcklin Published in Helsinki, Finland by the Finnish Society for Aesthetics, 2019 6 Contents 9 Oiva Kuisma, Sanna Lehtinen and Harri Mäcklin Introduction: From Baumgarten to Contemporary Aesthetics 19 Morten Kyndrup Were We Ever Modern? Art, Aesthetics, and the Everyday: Distinctions and Interdependences 41 Lars-Olof Åhlberg Everyday and Otherworldly Objects: Dantoesque Transfiguration 63 Markus Lammenranta How Art Teaches: A Lesson from Goodman 78 María José Alcaraz León Aesthetic Intimacy 101 Knut Ove Eliassen Quality Issues 112 Martta Heikkilä Work and Play – The Built Environments in Terry Gilliam’s Brazil 132 Kalle Puolakka Does Valery Gergiev Have an Everyday? 148 Francisca Pérez-Carreño The Aesthetic Value of the Unnoticed 167 Mateusz Salwa Everyday Green Aesthetics 180 Ossi Naukkarinen Feeling (With) Machines 201 Richard Shusterman Pleasure, Pain, and the Somaesthetics of Illness: A Question for Everyday Aesthetics 215 Epiloque: Jos de Mul These Boots Are Made for Talkin’. Some Reflections on Finnish Mobile Immobility 224 Index of Names 229 List of Contributors 7 OIVA KUISMA, SANNA LEHTINEN & HARRI MÄCKLIN INTRODUCTION: FROM BAUMGARTEN TO CONTEMPORARY AESTHETICS ontemporary philosopher-aestheticians
    [Show full text]
  • Introducing Disability Aesthetics
    RPP Disability Aesthetics Tobin Siebers http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=1134097 University of Michigan Press, 2010 Chapter 1 Introducing Disability Aesthetics Aesthetics tracks the sensations that some bodies feel in the presence of other bodies. This notion of aesthetics, first conceived by Alexander Baumgarten, posits the human body and its affective relation to other bodies as foundational to the appearance of the beautiful—and to such a powerful extent that aesthetics suppresses its underlying corporeality only with difficulty. The human body is both the subject and object of aesthetic production: the body creates other bodies prized for their ability to change the emotions of their maker and endowed with a semblance of vitality usually ascribed only to human beings. But all bodies are not cre- ated equal when it comes to aesthetic response. Taste and disgust are vola- tile reactions that reveal the ease or disease with which one body might incorporate another. The senses revolt against some bodies, while other bodies please them. These responses represent the corporeal substrata on which aesthetic effects are based. Nevertheless, there is a long tradition of trying to replace the underlying corporeality of aesthetics with idealist and disembodied conceptions of art. For example, the notion of “disin- terestedness,” an ideal invented in the eighteenth century but very much alive today, separates the pleasures of art from those of the body, while the twentieth-century notion of “opticality” denies the bodily character of visual perception. The result is a nonmaterialist aesthetics that devalues the role of the body and limits the definition of art.
    [Show full text]
  • Aesthetics—What? Why? and Wherefore?
    KENDALL WALTON Aesthetics—What? Why? and Wherefore? It is a very great honor to address my friends and philosophy of quantum physics are younger. But colleagues as president of the American Society these are clearly subcategories of traditional, well- for Aesthetics, an organization that plays a unique established areas of philosophy—ethics and phi- role in a field that is, at once, a major traditional losophy of science—and they inherit much of their branch of philosophy and also central to disci- identity and sense of purpose from their parents. plines often regarded as remote from philosophy, Aesthetics is not so fortunate. It is related in vari- as well as depending crucially on their contribu- ous important ways to epistemology, metaphysics, tions. philosophy of mind, philosophy of language— I will follow the lead of one of my distinguished indeed it overlaps all of them—but these older predecessors in this office, Peter Kivy, who used relatives are at best aunts and uncles to aesthetics, the occasion of his own presidential address twelve not parents. Aesthetics must figure out for itself years ago to step back and reflect on the state of what exactly it is. the discipline and the nature of aesthetics.1 Two kinds of issues about the field need to be addressed: What is distinctive about this branch i. what is aesthetics? of philosophy, in contrast to others? And what is philosophy? Under the first heading, we will ask Aesthetics is a strange field, in some ways a con- what aesthetics is the philosophy of , what domain fused one.
    [Show full text]
  • Of the Standard of Taste: David Hume's Aesthetic Ideology
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Of the Standard of Taste: David Hume's Aesthetic Ideology 著者 Okochi Sho journal or SHIRON(試論) publication title volume 42 page range 1-18 year 2004-12-20 URL http://hdl.handle.net/10097/57594 SHIRON No.42 (2004) Of the Standard of Taste: David Hume’s Aesthetic Ideology Sho Okochi The relationship between moral philosophy and aesthetics still remains one of the most important problems to be clarified in eighteenth-century British intellectual history. Both of these theoretical discourses have one important question in common—the question of how sentiment, which seems individual and idiosyncratic, can be the standard of judgment. As many commentators have already suggested, in the background of the emergence of moral philosophy and aesthetics during the period was the rapid commercialization of British society.1 After Mandeville inveighed against Shaftesbury’s theory of virtue, the theorists of moral senti- ments—many of whom were Scottish—tried to answer the question of how a modern commercial society that approves individual desires and passions as the driving force of commerce can avoid moral corruption.2 They constructed subtle arguments to demonstrate that principles regu- lating moral degeneration were incorporated into the mechanism of human sentiment. Theorists of ethics and aesthetics in the age from Shaftesbury to Richard Payne Knight never ceased to discuss the prob- lem of taste. The term ‘taste,’ derived from bodily palate, served British moral philosophers as the best metaphor through which to signify the inner faculty that intuitively grasps general rules of art and of life and manners.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant on the Beautiful: the Interest in Disinterestedness
    Kant on the Beautiful: The Interest in Disinterestedness Paul Daniels In the Critique of the Power of Judgment, Immanuel Kant proposes a puzzling account of the experience of the beautiful: that aesthetic judg- ments are both subjective and speak with a universal voice.1 These proper- ties – the subjective and the universal – seem mutually exclusive but Kant maintains that they are compatible if we explain aesthetic judgment in terms of the mind’s a priori structure, as explicated in his earlier Critique of Pure Reason. Kant advances two major claims towards arguing for the compatibility of the subjectivity and universality of the experience of beauty: (i) that aesthetic judgments are ‘disinterested’, and (ii) that the universality of an aesthetic judgment derives from the transcendental idealist’s account of ordinary spatio-temporal experience – that is, our ordinary cognitive framework can explain the experience of beauty. If correct, these two claims support the thesis that, while the experience of beauty is wholly sub- jective, it nevertheless speaks with a universal voice (or, the experience of beauty can be related among subjects). I will move to interpret Kant’s the- ory of the beautiful with reference to his earlier two Critiques in order to bet- ter understand the marriage of subjectivity and universality. In turn, this re- veals a deeper symmetry between the disinterestedness of the experience of beauty and the freedom of moral action, allowing Kant to maintain, as he 2 indeed does, that “beauty is the symbol of morality.” The claim that aesthetic judgments are ‘disinterested’ means that a genuine aesthetic judgment does not include any extrinsic considerations COLLOQUY text theory critique 16 (2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Final Thesis
    A DEFENSE OF AESTHETIC ANTIESSENTIALISM: MORRIS WEITZ AND THE POSSIBLITY OF DEFINING ‘ART’ _____________________________ A Thesis Presented to The Honors Tutorial College Ohio University _____________________________ In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for Graduation from the Honors Tutorial College with the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy and Art History _____________________________ By Jordan Mills Pleasant June, 2010 ii This thesis has been approved by The Honors Tutorial College and the Department of Philosophy ___________________________ Dr. Arthur Zucker Chair, Department of Philosophy Thesis Advisor ___________________________ Dr. Scott Carson Honors Tutorial College, Director of Studies Philosophy ___________________________ Jeremy Webster Dean, Honors Tutorial College iii This thesis has been approved by The Honors Tutorial College and the Department of Art History ___________________________ Dr. Jennie Klein Chair, Department of Art History Thesis Advisor ___________________________ Dr. Jennie Klein Honors Tutorial College, Director of Studies Art History ___________________________ Jeremy Webster Dean, Honors Tutorial College iv Dedicated to Professor Arthur Zucker, without whom this work would have been impossible. v Table Of Contents Thesis Approval Pages Page ii Introduction: A Brief History of the Role of Definitions in Art Page 1 Chapter I: Morris Weitz’s “The Role of Theory in Aesthetics” Page 8 Chapter II: Lewis K. Zerby’s “A Reconsideration of the Role of the Theory in Aesthetics. A Reply to Morris Weitz”
    [Show full text]
  • Beauty from a Pragmatist and Somaesthetic Perspective a Conversation with Richard Shusterman
    Stefano Marino Page 6–11 Beauty from a Pragmatist and Somaesthetic Perspective A Conversation with Richard Shusterman Stefano Marino Richard Shusterman is an American pragmatist philosopher, currently Dorothy F. Schmidt Eminent Scholar in the Humanities, Professor of Philosophy and English, and Director of the “Center for Body, Mind, and Culture” at Florida Atlantic University (FAU). Shusterman is mostly known for his contributions in the field of pragmatist aesthetics and the emerging field of somaesthetics. Among the main topics of his original development of a pragmatist philosophical perspective one can mention experience (and aesthetic experience, in particular), the definition of art, the question of interpretation, the philosophical defense of the value and significance of popular art (in comparison to the frequent devaluation of the latter by many philosophers and intellectuals), the revaluation of the idea of philosophy as an art of living, and finally the strong emphasis of the role of the body in most (or perhaps all) human practices, activities and experiences. This deep concern for embodiment led to his proposing the field of somaesthetics, and eventually to the existence of The Journal of Somaesthetics, of which he is one of the founding editors. Since pragmatist aesthetics is one of the leading trends in contemporary aesthetics, and since beauty is one of the guiding concepts of all research in aesthetics since its foundation with Baumgarten and Kant until today, we thought it would be interesting to ask Shusterman about the role that beauty played in his philosophical thought and in his vision of somaesthetics. 1. Together with taste, genius, the sublime and a few other concepts, beauty (or: the beautiful) surely represents one of the main questions in the whole history of aesthetics.
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Aesthetics Handbook
    Dear Forest Service Employees, I am very pleased to introduce the revised Landscape Aesthetics Handbook. This Handbook replaces Agriculture Handbook 462 - The Visual Management System, which has been an important tool for visual resource management for the past 25 years. The users and owners of the national forests continue to express a strong interest in maintaining the character of forest and grassland settings. These settings provide special places for recreation and visual amenities. Alfred Runte stated in a book called The National Forest Idea (published in 1991) "There is no question...that the national forests are major contributors to an American sense of place, to an identity with landscape that transcends eco- nomics for its own sake. The founders of the national forest idea...were consistent in their advocacy for landscape aesthetics. The forests not only should be functional, they should be beautiful as well." This idea is one of the fundamental principles of the Landscape Aesthetics Handbook. While retaining many of the basic inventory elements of the Visual Management System, the Landscape Aesthetics Handbook incorporates much of what we are learning about the management of ecosystems. The landscapes we see today are the result of both natural and human processes that have occurred over time. Understanding these processes will help us consider the effects of proposed changes in the landscape and to incorpo- rate people's values into our decisions more effectively. Please begin using the concepts and terms contained in this Handbook as you work on new projects or initiate forest plan revisions. I am confident that with this revised Handbook, the Forest Service will not only continue to be a national leader in visual resource management, but will also demon- strate a strong commitment to integrating human values into ecosystem management.
    [Show full text]
  • Feminist Art and the Essentialism Controversy*
    The CENTENNIAL !!@VIEW THE CENTENNIAL REVIEW VOL. XXXIX, NO. 3, FALL 1995 Vol. XXXIX N o. 3 Fall1995 AESTHETICS AND IDEOLOGY Editor Assistant Editor Edited by Judith Stoddart R. K. Meiners RichardT. Peterson CONTENTS Managing Editor Editorial Assistant Cheryllee Finney WendyFalb Acknowledgments Editorial Board 385 Linda Beard, African & Afro-American Literature Frieda S. Brown, Romance & Classical Languages After Ideology? Stephen L. Esquith, Philosophy . Judith Stoddart A. C. Goodson, English & Comparattve Ltterature 387 James Hill, English Karen Klomparens, Botany & Plant Pathology Richard Phillips, Mathematics I. RECITING BAKHTIN Linda Stanford, Art Mark Sullivan, Music Bakhtin at 100: Art, Ethics, and the Architectonic Self Scott Whiteford, Latin American Studies Caryl Emerson 397 Editorial Advisory Board Jean Elshtain, Vanderbilt University A Response to Caryl Emerson: Marvin Fisher, Arizona State University Bakhtin's Aesthetics: From Architectonics Carolyn Forche, George Mason University and Axiology to Sociology and Ideology Gerald Graff, University of Chicago Don H. Bialostosky Alison M. Jaggar, University of Colorado-Boulder 419 Douglas Kellner, University ofTexas-Austin Donald Kuspit, SUNY-Stony Brook Bakhtin and Social Change; Or, Why No John Vandermeer, University of Michigan One's Bakhtln Is Politically Correct Evan Watkins, University of Washington Michael Bemard-Donals Cornel West, Harvard University 429 Sheldon Wolin, Princeton University, Emeritus Bakhtln and Language Theory: Beyond a Unified Field Theory Barry Alford 445 FEMINIST ART AND THE ESSENTIALISM CONTROVERSY* By Mary D. Garrard THE YEAR 1994 marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the beginning of the modern feminist movement-a time for celebration and reflection. It has not been a simple uphill journey, in fact the road has been quite rocky at times, and many feminists have been discouraged to see more backlash than progress.
    [Show full text]
  • Thinking Media Aesthetics: Media Studies, Film Studies and the Arts
    Introduction Liv Hausken All through the 20th century, there have been rich and complex interchanges between aesthetic practices and media technologies. Along with the arrival of mass media, new technological forms of culture were gradually added to the old typologies of the arts. Photography, film, television, and video increasingly ap- peared in the curricula of art schools and were given separate departments in art museums. With the introduction of digital media technologies in the 1980s and 1990s, the means of production, storage, and distribution of mass media changed, and eventually, so did its uses. As artists adopted the technologies of mass media, the economy of fine art (like the economy of limited editions) was confronted with the logics of mass production and mass distribution. Thus, when visiting a contemporary art museum one might find, for example, such conceptually con- tradictory displays as “DVD, edition of 3” (see for instance Lev Manovich 2000). The increasing centrality of digital tools and technologies in all sorts of social practices has changed the media as we have known it. These social, cul- tural and technological changes in everyday life have also influenced artistic forms, as well as modes of imagination, expression, and critique. In these complex interchanges between aesthetic practices and media technolo- gies, media aesthetics has emerged as an interdisciplinary field of research between media studies and the aesthetic disciplines. This field grew out of earlier attempts at theorizing about the relations between aesthetics, technology and media, such as media philosophy (Friedrich Kittler), medium theory (Joshua Meyrowitz), mediol- ogy (Régis Debray) and critical theory (most notably Walter Benjamin), and is influenced by current, aesthetic theories of what has been termed “new media” (Mark Hansen) and “visual culture” (W.J.T.
    [Show full text]
  • Hume's Aesthetics and Ethics Comparison
    Ethics: Hume’s central claim is that when we ascribe praise or blame, that blame Aesthetics: “Strong sense, united to delicate sentiment, perfected by or praise derives from an attitude of sympathy. His ethical theory is an example of comparison, and cleared of all prejudice, can alone entitle critics to this altruism for central to Hume’s theory is the concept which he refers to as valuable character (p. 278). Truth is disputable, not taste (8) “sympathy” or “humanity” or “fellow feeling.” There are no moral facts. ‘Selfishness & confined generosity.” 1. Treats aesthetic pleasures as an instinctual & natural human response. Successful arts exploit our natural sentiments by employing appropriate 1. Sympathy is the source of moral approval (not an object of moral approval). composition & design. Only empirical inquiry can establish reliable ways to His goal is basically the discovery of human nature. elicit the approval of taste. 2. Sympathy is the capacity (psychological mechanism) to be moved or a. Sentiment-essence of moral evaluation; they are responses to sensory affected by others, to be pleased or displeased. The strength of people’s impressions; truth is disputable, not taste. Taste is immediate and spontaneous, sympathy vary according to circumstances. In Enquiry he places more yet the application of “good sense” and “reason” improves it. Taste is the emphasis on phenomenon of sympathy with whole of society. capacity to respond with approval or disapproval (wine judges) with 3. It is unanalyzable, rooted in our human constitution. He understands virtue experience & education. Feeling, not thought, informs us that an object is to be a psychological disposition consisting of a tendency to feel a certain beautiful/or ugly or that an action exhibits virtue/vice.
    [Show full text]