african |
object of that experience it is after all to experience that, we must turn if we are to understand the value of the aesthetic realm—our reason for. Engaging with it studying it and adding to it until we understand that value we will not know why we ought to construct such a concept as the aesthetic! Still less why we should erect a whole branch of philosophy devoted to its analysis a further reason also suggests itself. For rejecting the approach to aesthetics that sees it merely as the philosophy of art because art and the. Institutions that sustain it are mutable and perhaps inessential features of print the human condition while we classify together such separate art forms as poetry, the novel music. Drama painting sculpture and architecture our disposition to do so is as much, the consequence of philosophical theory, as its premise would other people at other times. And in other conditions have countenanced such a classification or seen its point and if so would they have been motivated by similar purposes similar observations and similar beliefs we might reasonably be skeptical for while there. Have been many attempts to, find something in common— if only a family resemblance —between the various currently accepted art forms they have all been both contentious in themselves and of little aesthetic interest, considered materially, i e without reference to the experiences. That we direct to them the arts seem to have little? In common except for those properties that are either too uninteresting to deserve philosophical scrutiny the property for example of, being artifacts or else too vast and vague to be independently intelligible consider the theory of clive bell art that art is. Distinguished by its character as significant form initially attractive the suggestion crumbles at once before the skeptic when is form significant the only answer to be extracted from bell is this when it is art in effect the theory reduces to a tautology in any. Normal understanding of the words a traffic warden is a significant form at least to the motorist who sees himself, about to receive a ticket thus to explain bell's meaning it is necessary to restrict the term significant to the significance whatever that is of art moreover it is of the greatest philosophical importance to attend not only to the resemblances between the art forms but also to their differences it is true that almost anything can be seen from some point of view as beautiful at the same time however our experience of beauty crucially depends upon a knowledge of the object in which beauty is seen it is absurd to suppose that i could present you with an object that might be a stone a sculpture a box a fruit or an animal and expect you to tell me whether it is beautiful, before knowing what it is in general we may say—in opposition to a certain tradition in aesthetics that finds expression in kant's theory—that our sense of, beauty is always dependent upon a conception of the object in the way that our sense of the beauty of the human figure is dependent upon, a conception of that figure features that we should regard as beautiful in a horse—developed haunches curved back and so on—we should regard as ugly in a man and those aesthetic judgments would be determined by our conception of what men and horses generally are how they move and what they achieve through their movements in a similar way features that are beautiful in a sculpture may, not be beautiful in a work of architecture where an idea of function seems to govern, our perceptions in. Every case our perception of the beauty of a work of art requires us to be aware, of the distinctive character of each art form and to put out of mind as largely irrelevant to our concerns the overarching category of art. To which all supposedly belong but if? That is so it is difficult to see how we could cast light upon the realm of aesthetic interest by studying the. Concept of, art whether or not, that concept is a recent invention it is certainly a recent obsession medieval and renaissance philosophers who approached the problems of beauty and taste—e g st thomas aquinas peter abelard and even leon battista alberti—often wrote of beauty without reference to art taking as their principal example the human face and body the, distinctively modern approach to aesthetics began to take, shape during the th century with the writings on art of jean jacques rousseau charles batteux and johann winckelmann and the theories of taste proposed by the rd earl of shaftesbury francis hutcheson lord kames henry home and archibald alison this approach materialized not only because of a growing interest in fine art as a uniquely human. Phenomenon but also because of the wallpaper awakening of feelings toward nature which marked the dawn of the romantic movement in kant's aesthetics. Indeed nature has pride, of place as offering the only examples of what he calls free beauty —i e beauty that can be appreciated without the intermediary of any polluting concept art for kant was not merely one among many objects of aesthetic interest it was also fatally flawed in its dependence upon intellectual understanding even without taking that extreme position it is difficult to accept that the fragile and historically determined concept of art can bear the weight of a full aesthetic theory leaving aside the case of natural beauty we must still recognize the reproductions existence of a host of human activities dress decoration manners ornament in, which taste is of the essence and yet which, seems totally removed from the world, of fine art it has been common. Following the lead of batteux to make a distinction between the fine and the useful arts and, to accommodate the activities just referred to under the latter description but it is clear that this is sketches no more than a gesture and that the points of similarity between the art of the dressmaker and that of the composer are of significance only because of a similarity in the interests, that, these arts are meant to satisfy the aesthetic recipient whichever approach we take however there is an all important question upon the answer to which the course of aesthetics depends the question of the recipient only beings of a certain kind have aesthetic interests and aesthetic. Experience, produce and appreciate art employ, such concepts as those of beauty expression, and form. What is it that gives these beings access to this realm the question is at least as old as plato but received its most important modern exposition in the. Philosophy of kant who argued first that it is only rational beings who can exercise judgment—the faculty of aesthetic interest—and second that until exercised in aesthetic judgment rationality is incomplete it is. Worth pausing to examine these two claims rational beings are those like us whose thought. And conduct. Are guided by reason who deliberate about what to believe and what. To do and who affect each other's beliefs and actions through argument and persuasion kant argued that reason has both a theoretical and a practical employment and that a rational. Being finds both his conduct and his thought inspired and limited by reason the, guiding law of rational conduct is that. Of morality enshrined in the categorical imperative which enjoins us to act only on that maxim which we can at the same time will as a universal law by virtue of practical reason the, rational being sees himself and others of his kind as subject to an order that is not that of nature he lives responsive to the law. Of reason and sees himself as a potential member of a kingdom of ends wherein the demands of reason are satisfied moreover he looks on every rational being—himself included—as made sacrosanct by reason and by the morality that stems from, it the rational being he recognizes must be treated always as an end in himself as something of intrinsic value and never as a mere object to be disposed of according to purposes that are not its own the capacity to see things as intrinsically valuable irreplaceable or ends in themselves is one of the important gifts of reason but it, is not exercised only practically or only in our dealings with other reasoning beings it may also be exercised contemplatively toward nature as a whole in this case practical considerations are held in abeyance and we stand back from nature and look on it with a disinterested concern such an, attitude is not. Only peculiar to rational beings but also necessary to them without it they have only an impoverished grasp of their own significance and of their relation to the world in which they! Are situated through their thoughts and actions this disinterested. Contemplation and the experiences that? Arise from it acquaint us according. To kant with the ultimate harmony that exists between the world and our! Faculties they therefore provide the ultimate guarantee both of practical reasoning and of the understanding by intimating. To us directly that the world answers to our purposes and corresponds to our beliefs disinterested contemplation forms for kant the core of aesthetic experience and the ultimate ground of the judgment of beauty he thus concludes, that only rational beings have aesthetic experience that every rational being? Needs aesthetic experience and is significantly incomplete without it and that aesthetic experience stands in, fundamental proximity to moral judgment and is integral to. Our nature as moral beings modern philosophers have sometimes. Followed kant sometimes ignored him rarely however have they set out to show that aesthetic experience, is more widely distributed than the human race for what could it mean to say of a cow for example that in staring at a landscape it is. Moved by the sentiment of beauty what in a cow's behaviour or mental composition could manifest such a feeling while a cow may be uninterested it cannot surely be disinterested in the manner of a rational being for whom disinterest is the most passionate form of interest it is in pondering such, considerations that one comes to realize just how deeply embedded in human nature is the aesthetic impulse and how impossible it is to separate. This impulse from the complex mental life that distinguishes human beings from beasts this condition must be borne in mind by any philosopher seeking to confront the all important. Question of the relation between the aesthetic and the moral the aesthetic experience such considerations point toward the aforementioned approach that begins with the aesthetic experience as the most likely to capture the christian reproductions nude center folkfull range of aesthetic phenomena without begging the important philosophical questions about their nature. Can we then single out a faculty an attitude a mode of judgment or a form of experience that is distinctively aesthetic and if so can we attribute to it the significance that would make this philosophical enterprise both important in itself and relevant to the many questions. Posed by beauty criticism and art taking their cue from kant many philosophers have defended the idea of an aesthetic attitude. As one divorced from! Practical concerns a kind of distancing or standing back as it were from ordinary involvement the classic statement of this position is edward bullough's ‘psychical distance' as a factor in art and an aesthetic principle an essay published in the british journal of psychology in, while there is certainly something of interest to be said along those lines it cannot be the whole story just what kind of distance is envisaged is the lover distanced from his beloved if not by what right does. He picasso call her beautiful does distance imply a lack artes of practical involvement if such is the case how can we ever take up an aesthetic attitude to those things that have a purpose for us—things such as. A dress building or decoration but if these are not aesthetic have we not paid a rather high price for our definition of. This word—the price of detaching it from the phenomena that it was how great thou designed to identify kant's own formulation was more satisfactory he described the recipient of aesthetic experience not as distanced but as disinterested meaning that the recipient, does not, treat the object of enjoyment either as a vehicle for curiosity or as, a means to an end he contemplates the object! As it is in itself and apart from all interest in a similar spirit arthur schopenhauer argued, that a person could regard anything aesthetically so long as he regarded it in independence of his will—that is irrespective of any use to which he might put it regarding it thus a person could come to see the idea that the object expressed and in this knowledge consists aesthetic appreciation die welt als wille und, vorstellung the world as will and idea of a piece with such a view is the popular theory of art as a kind of play activity in which creation and appreciation are divorced from the normal urgencies of existence and surrendered to leisure with the agreeable the good the perfect. Wrote friedrich schiller man is merely in earnest but with beauty he plays briefe über die ästhetische. Erziehung des menschen – letters on. The aesthetic education of man such thoughts have already been encountered the problem is to give them philosophical precision they have recurred. In modern philosophy in a variety of forms—for example in the theory that the aesthetic object is always considered for its own sake or as a unique individual. Rather. Than a member, of a class those particular formulations have caused some philosophers to treat aesthetic objects as though they were endowed with a peculiar metaphysical status see below the work of art alternatively it is sometimes argued that the aesthetic experience has an intuitive character as opposed. To the conceptual character of scientific thought or the instrumental character of practical understanding the simplest. Way of summarizing this approach to aesthetics is in terms of, two fundamental propositions the aesthetic object is an object of. Sensory experience and enjoyed as such it is heard seen or in, the limiting case imagined in sensory form the aesthetic object is at the same time contemplated its appearance is a matter of intrinsic interest and studied not merely as an object of sensory pleasure but also. As the repository of significance and value the first of these propositions explains the word aesthetic which was initially, used in this connection by the leibnizian philosopher alexander baumgarten in meditationes philosophicae de nonnullis ad poema pertinentibus reflections on poetry baumgarten borrowed the greek term for sensory perception aisthēsis in order to denote, a realm of concrete knowledge the realm as he, saw it of poetry in which a content is communicated in sensory form the second proposition is in essence the foundation! Of taste it describes the motive, of. Our attempt to, discriminate rationally between those objects that are worthy of contemplative attention and those. That are not almost all of the aesthetic theories of post. Kantian. Idealism depend upon those christian, two propositions and try to explain the peculiarities of aesthetic experience and aesthetic judgment in terms of the synthesis of the sensory and the. Intellectual that they imply—the synthesis summarized in hegel's theory of art as the sensuous embodiment of the idea neither proposition is particularly clear throughout the discussions of kant and his immediate following the sensory is assimilated to the concrete the individual the particular and the determinate while the intellectual is assimilated to the abstract the universal the, general and the indeterminate —assimilations that. Would. Nowadays be regarded with extreme suspicion nevertheless subsequent theories have repeatedly returned to the idea that aesthetic experience involves a special synthesis of intellectual and sensory components and that both its peculiarities and its value are to be derived from such a synthesis the idea at once gives rise to paradoxes the most important was noticed by kant who called it the antinomy of taste as an exercise, of reason he argued aesthetic experience must inevitably tend toward a reasoned choice and therefore must formulate itself as a judgment aesthetic judgment however seems to be in conflict with itself it cannot be at the same time aesthetic an expression of sensory enjoyment and also a judgment claiming universal assent yet all rational beings by virtue of their rationality seem disposed, to make these judgments on the one hand they feel pleasure in some object and this pleasure is immediate not based according to kant in! Any conceptualization or. In any inquiry into cause purpose or constitution on the other hand they express their pleasure in the form of a judgment speaking as if beauty were a quality of the object and so representing their pleasure as objectively valid but how can this be so the pleasure is immediate based in no reasoning or analysis so what permits this demand. For universal agreement however we approach the idea, of beauty. We find this paradox emerging our ideas feelings and. Judgments are called aesthetic precisely because of their direct relation to sensory enjoyment hence no one can judge the beauty of an object that he has never encountered scientific judgments like practical. Principles can. Be received second hand i can for example take you as my authority for the truths of physics or for the utility of railways but i? Cannot take you as my authority for the merits of leonardo or mozart if i have not seen or heard works by either artist it would seem to follow from this that there can be no rules or principles of. Aesthetic judgment since i must feel the pleasure immediately in the perception of the object and cannot be talked into it by any grounds of proof it is always experience and never conceptual thought that gives the right to aesthetic judgment so that anything that alters the experience of an object. Alters its aesthetic significance as well as kant put it aesthetic judgment is free from concepts and beauty itself is not a concept such a conclusion however. Seems to be inconsistent with the fact that aesthetic judgment is a form of judgment when i describe something as beautiful i do not mean merely that it pleases me i am speaking about it not about myself and if challenged i, try to! Find reasons for my view i do not explain my feeling but give grounds for, it by pointing to features of its object any search for reasons, has the universalizing character of rationality i am in effect saying that others insofar as they are rational ought to feel exactly the same delight as i feel being disinterested i have put aside my interests and with them everything. That makes my judgment relative to me but if that is so then the judgment of taste is based on concepts for otherwise there could be no room even for contention in the matter or for the claim to the necessary agreement of others in short the expression aesthetic judgment seems to be a contradiction in terms denying in the first term precisely that reference to rational considerations that it affirms in the second this paradox which we have expressed in kant's language is not peculiar. To the philosophy of kant on the contrary, it is encountered in one form or, another by every philosopher or critic who takes aesthetic experience seriously and who therefore recognizes the tension between the sensory and the intellectual constraints upon it on the one hand aesthetic experience is rooted in the. Immediate sensory enjoyment of its. Object through an act of perception on the other it seems to reach beyond enjoyment toward a meaning that is addressed to our reasoning powers and that seeks judgment from them thus criticism the reasoned justification, of, aesthetic judgment is an inevitable upshot of aesthetic experience yet critical reasons can never be merely intellectual they always contain a reference to the. Way in which an object is perceived relationship between form and content two related. Paradoxes. Also emerge, from the same basic conception of the aesthetic experience the first was given extended consideration by hegel who argued in his vorlesungen, über die aesthetik lectures on aesthetics eng trans philosophy of fine art. Roughly as, follows our sensuous appreciation of art concentrates upon the given appearance —the form it is this that holds our attention and that gives to the work of art. Its peculiar individuality because it addresses itself to our sensory appreciation the work of art is essentially. Concrete to be understood by an act, of perception rather than by a process of discursive thought at the same, time our understanding of the work of art is in part intellectual we seek in it a conceptual content which it, presents to us. In the form of an! Idea one purpose of critical interpretation is to expound this idea in discursive form—to give the equivalent school of the. Content of the work of art in another nonsensuous idiom but criticism can never, succeed in this task for by separating the. Content from the particular form it abolishes its individuality the content presented then ceases to be the exact content of that work of art in losing its individuality the content, loses its aesthetic reality it thus ceases to be a reason for attending to the particular work of art that first attracted our critical attention it cannot be this that we saw in. The original work and that explained its power over us for this content displayed in the discursive idiom of the critical intellect is no more than a husk a discarded relic of a meaning that eluded us in the act of seizing it if the content is to be the true object of aesthetic interest it, must remain wedded to its individuality it cannot be detached, from its sensuous embodiment without being detached from itself content is therefore insep le from form and form in turn insep le from content it is the form that it is only by virtue of the content that it embodies hegel's argument is the archetype of, many all aimed at showing that it is both necessary to distinguish form from content and also impossible to do so this paradox may be resolved by rejecting either of its premises but as with kant's antinomy neither premise seems dispensable to suppose that content. And form are insep le is in. Effect to dismiss both ideas as illusory since no two works of art can then share either a content or a form—the form being definitive of each work's individuality in this case no? One could ever justify his interest in a work of art by reference to its meaning the intensity of aesthetic interest becomes a puzzling and ultimately inexplicable feature of our mental life if on the other hand we insist that content and form are sep le we shall never be able to find through a study of content the, reason for attending to the particular work of art that intrigues us every work of art stands proxy. For its paraphrase an impassable gap then opens between aesthetic experience and its ground and the claim. That aesthetic experience is intrinsically valuable is thrown in doubt a related paradox. Is sometimes referred to as the heresy of paraphrase the words being those of the u s literary critic cleanth brooks the well wrought urn the heresy is that of assuming that, the meaning of a work of art particularly of poetry can be paraphrased according to brooks who here followed an argument of benedetto croce the meaning of a poem consists precisely in what is not translatable poetic, meaning is bound up, with the particular disposition of the words—their sound rhythm, and arrangement—in short with the sensory embodiment provided by the poem itself to alter that embodiment is to produce either another poem and therefore another? Meaning or something that |