PT59.S3.Q24 - eighteenth-century european aesthetics

Comments

• 1 Like

  c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  September 2015 2398 karma

  This question is actually from PT59, S3, Q24
  
  Let's take a second to understand what the argument is saying.
  
  First, it starts off by saying 18th Century Euro Aesthetics (18EA) was reasonably good at explaining all art. This doesn't seem like too high of compliment to 18EA... Reasonably successful? That's like saying its competent. Not great, just ok. But then it says that, because 60s artwork can't be explained by 18EA, that no theory can be complete. Did you catch the gap here?
  
  
  
  Why is it that no theory can be complete just because some theory that was just ok to begin with can't explain something? This doesn't seem like very good evidence. It would be like saying I'm reasonably successful at shooting free throws in basketball, but I can't make 90% of my shots, therefore no one can. I would be assuming that I am as successful as someone can be, which is obviously wrong.
  
  This is what E says! It presumes that 18EA is as encompassing as a theory can be, because it's making the argument that "hey... If 18EA can't do it, nothing can!" But just like my free throw example, this isn't true--there's no support for this presumption.
  
  
  Hope this helps!
• lpadr009 Free Trial Member

  September 2015 379 karma

  Ty @c.janson35 )))))) you are THE BEST. I coulda sworn it was 58 hehe
• c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  September 2015 2398 karma

  Haha thanks! Glad I could help!