That analysis of the history of aesthetic arguments is a waste of time

Eco's aforementioned lecture consists of a series of quotations on the subject of ugliness taken from different authors who have lived in different time periods and suggesting that they represent points of some kind of a timeline. As there is no reason to think that these particular writings represent statistically meaningful samples, the whole exercise is bunk. (Interestingly, Eco himself begins his lecture by cautioning against taking art works of an era as representative of its opinions. As a result what he thinks the point of his lecture might be isn't clear. Er... prestigiditation?)

There is another reason why the educational value of looking at historical aesthetic statements, such as those quoted by Eco, is nil: generally speaking, aesthetic writings, both East and West, have been uniformly awful.

Now, I do not mean their entertainment value: they are often very witty; and sometimes poetic. But their analytical value is just about zero.

To convince yourself, take any aesthetic debate of the past and try to follow it for more than a few paragraphs: read Apollinaire on Picasso; or the great debate between the ancients and the moderns; or the classicists' attacks on the baroque. Hardly any writer attempts an analysis; inveigh is the operative word. Any aesthetic theories proposed, if there are any, are ad hoc and usually patently ridiculous.

I am reminded of a Japanese girl I once heard during a marketing research interview. She explained why she did not soft-drink A: "because a friend said to me (with emphasis and emotion): "yuck! It is salty!" So I switched to B..."

Listen to the child: she tells the truth. This is how aesthetic points are made -- and taken.

Most aesthetic writing is on this pattern: it is either an attack or a defense of something; invariably arguments are used but they are always far weaker than the emotional emphasis of the argument. And it is always the latter that carries the day.

Analyzing the arguments is therefore of very limited interest.