I come to praise .join, not to bury it...

[Alex Martelli]

"Carel Fellinger" <cfelling at iae.nl> wrote in message
news:98u86d$6p9$1 at animus.fel.iae.nl...
> Alex Martelli <aleaxit at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Carel Fellinger" <cfelling at iae.nl> wrote in message
> > news:98rmod$c8p$1 at animus.fel.iae.nl...
> ...
> >> but if you get too blinded by this substance thing, you might easily
> >> overlook that in the end you have to weight things and there again the
> >> seasoned sense of aesthetics of the gifted ones is what makes the
> >> difference.
>
> > I appreciate "form follows function" as an aesthetic principle.
>
> Here we agree, and clearly Rococo, though having a beauty of its own,
> has nothing to do with the aesthetic principles that guided the
> Bauhaus people, so aesthetics in it self as the sole guiding light has
> it pitfals, to say the least:)  But we have discussed this before,
> aesthettics as a design guide only works for the `Enlightend Ones'.

So you're saying Brunelleschi was not 'Enlightend' enough for you,
for example, because he ornamented aplenty?  This keeps sounding
to me as high-falutin' cover-up for "what _I_ like is good".


> > You seem to imply some moderation (have to weight things) is
> > key to YOUR aesthetics -- fine, Aristotle will agree, as will
>
> I don't know why you think that moderation is key to my aesthetics,

That mention of "you have to weight things" above.  Extremist
aesthetics does no 'weighing' of one thing against another -- it
applies its principles ruthlessly (that's why it's extremist).


> The weighting you seem to refer to is the weighting you yourself
> mentioned earlier on, i.e. that Guido has to weight the relative

No, it's from the quote from YOUR post which is again repeated
at the beginning of this one (2nd line of the quote at the start).


Alex