How ordinary functional objects can be aesthetic??? 10pts!!?

Question: How ordinary functional objects can be aesthetic!?!?!? 10pts!!!?

10pts would be rewardedWww@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

I interpret the word "aesthetic" to mean well-formed, pleasing to the eye, and to a certain extent minimalistic, meaning that it has the elements it needs to convey its message and very little or nothing more!.

I think that a well-proportioned piece of silverware can be aesthetically pleasing, for instance, if it looks good, is functional (performs its intended function well), and captures the essence of what it means to be an eating utensil in a way that isn't *just* utilitarian!.

I think aesthetics are to a certain extent subjective, though!. Haven't studied the subject long enough to categorize my preferences, so I can't help you there!.

My two cents!.

PS We get 10 points for being awarded Best Answer!. Promising 10 points is !.!.!. well, pointless!. Either you award the best answer, or voters will after a couple of days go by!. Point-promising technically is a violation of Y!A's Community Guidelines!. Look under "point gaming", specifically!. just FYI!.

SaulWww@QuestionHome@Com

According to the strongest version of aesthetic functionalism, aesthetic value is completely determined by and therefore reducible to practical function!. According to the opposite view, function and aesthetic value are completely independent of each other!. Both these views are shown to be untenable, and instead aesthetic dualism is defended!. By this, I mean that some aesthetic judgments that can legitimately be made about an object refer to it under descriptions of its practical function, whereas others refer to it, for instance, under descriptions of its physical appearance!. Since valuations of the former type are in most cases positively correlated with satisfaction of functional requirements, this amounts to a defense of a radically weakened version of aesthetic functionalism!.
Www@QuestionHome@Com