Yes, I understand what Baumgarten's intentions were, but did he really "create" a science, or did he really "just make it up as he went along?"
Is aesthetics ever really an objective science?
In practical terms, the aesthetics of an object is largely measures by what its last auction price was.
When it comes to architecture, I'm mush more interested in visual literacy. I haven't read it in something like 25 years, but Arnheim's The Dynamics of Architectural Form might be a better base here than Baumgarten.
And did Baumgarten create such a science, or did he create a system of judgment whereby "value" is applied to objects?
1. the branch of philosophy dealing with such notions as the beautiful, the ugly, the sublime, the comic, etc., as applicable to the fine arts, with a view to establishing the meaning and validity of critical judgments concerning works of art, and the principles underlying or justifying such judgments.
2. the study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty.
I'm not really sure how much science is involved. Like mentioned above, "the cognition people are making it up as they go along."
I'm not exactly sure how "any definition of place is going to be arbitrary."
There is a somewhat unquestioned methodology to architectural history, which categorizes types of architectures by period (time) and location (place). And this is mostly a Western European standard. Yet architectural history is rarely written where it demonstrates how types of architectures actually overlap when architecture is culled from all over the globe at any given time.
If you're not arbitary about place and simply say the globe, and then look to see what types of architecture were being done (on the globe) at any given time, you'll see just how diverse architecture always was. Interestingly, this is how we judge the present (and conclude that standards are fractured), but it's not how the past is/has been judged.
I agree that architecture for the most part is arbitrary in the sense that most architecture reflects a set of specific decisions (arbitration), but only a small percentage of architecture is outright whimsical. Personally, it's refreshing to see just how diverse architecture has always been.
Otherwise, the real modus operandi of aesthetics is "what is the cash value?"
That is assuming the art by Bosch (suggested above) is always appealing. I find the image intersting, but not necessarily appealing.
The fractured standard is just that, fractured. There is no universal, and indeed there never really was. Just look at what was going on (somewhat globally) in the early 1730s. There is no real universal standard, rather standards were then (and still are?) relative to place.
I like the aesthetics of Ottopian symmetry.
Ichnographia Ottopia Revisited
Thus the suggestion of "aesthetics eingeschnudeled" (which roughly translates into "aesthetics sloppy-faced").
Perhaps Kant's aesthetics apply when there is an East Prussia (his home after all) and Fassbinder's aesthetics apply when there is no more East Prussia.
Any archinecters ever been to Kaliningrad? Apparently the place is completely German in form yet completely Russian in content. (At least that's what a East Prussian descendant told me what his father's return there 15 years ago was like.)