From Aesthetics-L come a series of excerpts:
He felt that this list might have some philosophic expertise in answering aesthetic questions turning on such an issue of intent. He stated that he found very few resources and references on the subject of aesthetics and haircuts. Here roughly therefore are the questions he posited:
(1) How do clients communicate to their hairdressing stylist specifically what they want their hair to finally look like?
Three more questions in a similar vein (that is, focusing entirely on how a client gets his ideas across to the stylist) followed. It is absolutely opaque to me what knowledge a bunch of people interested in philosophical aesthetics will have to enable them to answer these questions—wouldn't it be easier to hang out in a place where hair is cut for a while, maybe bring along a trained observer of some sort?
The only sign that the author of the email is aware that talking about haircuts with, like, big words and academic language is kind of funny:
There is however some points to be made about hairless baldness as part of the field. In an aesthetic way it is neat, and in a semiotic way it is significant, but in a practical way you have more face to wash.
Don't I know it, man. (Unless you interpret "he found very few resources and references on the subject of aesthetics and haircuts" as deadpan, for which there's some evidence—not just few resources, but few references!. But while it is funny I can easily imagine sociological or anthropological works about hairstyles, so it's not implausible or anything.)
In reality I'm just disappointed because, on seeing the subject line, I was excited by the possibility of reading an email about aesthetic concerns cropping up in daily life, and not just experiences of objects set aside as art, and the (spurious!) distinction between craft and art, etc, and in reality I got sentences like "Assuming linguistic oracy as the means of communication, directions should be mainly with lingual and verbal symbols, but with pictorial and gestural signs as a redundancy.", which callously disregards that fastest-growing group of barber patrons, those with no tongues. There are lots of us, but the media refuses to give us a voice! (Actually, there is some mention of art/craft/etc:
As an aesthetic object of artistic coiffure, the dressed hair would perhaps best be classed as an object of applied art, such as craft or design. The commissioning or ordering of an expert artisan to render a service entails instructions, which must be clear and exact, if there is to be a meeting of the minds. Whether the serviced object is of any art or any nonart is likely irrelevant to this semiotic process.
Perhaps it's because my instructions when I get a haircut are literally uninformative—"uh, shorter" doesn't convey much except "no, I don't want extensions"—but I doubt most such instructions are "clear and exact", and I'm certain that clarity and exactitude aren't necessary for a meeting of the minds.)
Comments