Talking of “medieval aesthetics” is historiographically disputable. During the Middle Ages, in fact, there is no discipline comparable with the aesthetics as from the eighteenth century we know it. In the medieval period, aesthetic considerations mostly occur in spurious contexts, and are all, so to say, pre-theoretical. They refer to different insights on what is the beautiful and what relationship holds between the beauty and its artistic expression. In the Middle Ages, that is, one can frequently encounters forms we would (...) nowadays call of descriptive aesthetics, occasionally forms of normative aesthetics, rather sporadically meta-aesthetic considerations. Not even a privileged attention is reserved to aesthetics understood as the description of the conditions of pleasure that follow from the perception of the beautiful, despite the theme of dilectum is important in the aesthetic meditations of medieval masters. Aesthetic discussions predominantly concern the relationships between the artist, an object and its representation. In this essay, I reconsider these relationships by discussing a key point of Thomas Aquinas’s reflection on the beauty: the role played by of the notion of representation in the explanation of the artistic process. (shrink)

The idea that nature is importantly frame-less is an entrenched dogma in much of environmental aesthetics. Although there are powerful arguments that support this position, there are also powerful arguments supporting the view that observers often - or even inevitably - frame, bound, or otherwise confine natural objects in the course of aesthetic regard. Facing these opposing arguments off against each other produces the 'framing paradox': On the one hand, frames seem to be an indispensable condition for the aesthetic experience (...) of anything whatsoever, and on the other hand the aesthetic appreciation of natural environments seems to require the dissolving or penetrating of boundaries of all sorts. To resolve this paradox, we must abandon an overly narrow conception of 'frame' that has generally been assumed throughout the debate and pay closer attention to what various framing devices (in both natural and artifactual settings) do to focus, rather than confine, aesthetic attention. Doing this enables us to make better sense of the way intelligence and imagination cooperate in carrying attention beyond perceptual phenomena. From the perspective that results, rival claims about the framability of nature can be seen as variable markers on an endless scale of aesthetic selectivity. (shrink)