What does the SCIENCE OF ASPECTS mean in this sentence?

Question

All of this takes us back to what in (modern painters) he had referred to as the SCIENCE OF ASPECTS - that understanding of things and the world in human terms.
Does it mean the SCIENCE of different POINT OF VIEWS?
What does ASPECTS mean in this phrase?

Answer 1

In this phrase, "science" refers to some form of analysis that utilizes a scientific approach (i.e. systematic arrangement of facts, operation of general laws, etc.).



As far as "aspects" is concerned, that sounds like the "human terms" that the sentence references later.



In application to modern painters, they used many styles and forms that were not immediately recognizable as something familiar. So, in order to better understand the painting, a "science of aspects" was developed to better describe the modern painters' works of art.

Answer 2

Golly Kara! I'm more inclined to take challenge with odzookers' oddzookery! But let's have a go at your question first:

The Science of Aspects is the basis of the Science of Astrology. An aspect is the angle the planets make to each other in the horoscope. Astrology is one of the sciences that can be used to understand "things and the World in human terms" It was one of the stepping stones, like alchemy, on which modern science was built.

Now my side comment: the word "science" has a simple meaning " an organised system" and can be applied to any sytem of organised information. Be sceptical when a "scientist" claims that something that works can't, because it isn't scientific ... doesn't fit their arbitrary way of looking at things! Homoeopathy works though scientifically there cannot be a single molecule of the chemical in the remedy! Using music for healing and learning works but "scientifically" it cannot. Gravity works though "science" has no idea what it is. Hypnotism has cured cancer though "science" cannot accept that. Remember one of our greatest scientists ... Albert Einstein ... claimed his discoveries came from the artist within him, not the scientist. Also consider that most breakthough inventions in history have come from free-thinking amateurs not from inside the box of science.

Whooo! nuff said.

Answer 3

This problem arises from artists who feel guilty about not being "scientific" enough to compete with physicists and engineers, which is utterly pointless anyway, so somebody invented a pseudo-science of "aspects," which is bad thinking and worse English.



Look up "aspect" and you'll see that there is no such thing as an aspect, all by itself--in order to make sense, it must be an aspect OF something, the characteristics of a thing seen from a point of view. Painting, for instance, has no temporal aspect beyond mere endurance; a painting does not take place in time. Music's primarily spatial aspect is musical notation, and recorded music has no spatial aspect at all. What aspect of sculpture would you want to discuss? size? materials? line? rotational? Some sculptures, like Calder's mobiles, have all those aspects, plus spatiality and temporality. What aspects of architecture? Silhouette? materials? function? According to every aesthetic system from Aristotle through Kant and Alfred North Whitehead, a single aspect of something is an "abstraction" in the literal sense, a selection of characteristics of its complete nature for purposes of discourse. Even science recognizes this fact; Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that we cannot know both a particle's position and velocity simultaneously.



This is not a "science" in any but the loosest sense of a systematic gathering and discussion of facts; there is no hypothesis, no experimental verification, no variables for experimentation, no repeatabilty of results--in fact, there's nothing "scientific" about it at all. It reminds me of Creationism, an attempt by the desperate to borrow the so-called "truth" of science and jam it into a place where it simple doesn't, and shouldn't apply. "Scientific" art analysis or faith implies that the imputed "enemy," some ogre called "Science," has already won and someone's is borrowing the term alone in a pathetic attempt to play catchup. These people should be returned to the shallow end of the gene pool, where we don't have to spend the time and $$ on a lifeguard to keep them from drowning in 2" of water.