At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the paradigm of aesthetic judgment was the judgment of whether something was beautiful and whether it was beautifully explained here within the framework of pleasure. Later, in the second half of the eighteenth century, the concept of aesthetic judgment expanded and encompassed the courts of the picturesque and the sublime, but now the judgment of the sublime has ceased to be completely pleasant. Edmund Burke describes the source of the feeling of the sublime as "anything that arises in any way to generate ideas of pain and danger," such as vast space, power and oblivion. When aesthetic courts are no longer just focused on the beautiful, a new way opens up for thinking about aesthetics, no longer as a certain kind of pleasure or a special kind of court, but as a set of certain types of object quality. Beauty and sublimity are only two types in a broad class of aesthetic qualities. The question that arises as a result of expanding the range of aesthetic qualities is whether all these aesthetic qualities can be described as formal qualities. Frank Sibley, the initiator of the modern discussion about aesthetic qualities, puts in the list of examples not only clear examples of formal qualities, such as elegance and poetry, but also qualities such as melancholy, which is usually considered a feature of expression, that is, belongs to a certain subclass of aesthetic qualities.
Interestingly, we are again being asked the same questions as those that are raised when it comes to the beauty court. Are these genuine qualities or are they receptor-to-receptor dependent? If they depend on the receptor, does it have to do with the color that every person without visual impairment sees more or less the same, or is it taste? Are there ideal critics of aesthetic qualities, as Hume suggested in the case of beauty evaluation, who can give a real judgment about aesthetic qualities? All these issues are still the subject of heated discussions and different understandings and reflections in the field of aesthetics.
The concept of special aesthetic pleasure or aesthetic perception has a much broader meaning today than the concept of the eighteenth century. John Dew is partly responsible for these changes, emphasizing the importance of the experience of everyday life, which, in his opinion, can have the same richness of perception as when confronted with a single work of art. Other theorists have said that what constitutes an aesthetic context is a special kind of aesthetic pose or position that we have when confronted with works of art, but in theory it can be directed at anything, including objects of nature, natural phenomena and the like. Thus, it turns out that an aesthetic position or attitude has a lot in common with an aesthetic judgment. Consequently, this is a special kind of uninteresting contemplation, whose attention is usually, but not exclusively, focused on one work of art. https://inscribemedia.co.uk/
