11 replies to this topic

[DonAthos]

On Esthetics, the Ayn Rand Lexicon quotes Philosophy: Who Needs It? as saying:

The fifth and last branch of philosophy is esthetics, the study of art, which is based on metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.

Not to devalue art (at all), but is the concern of aesthetics (my preferred spelling) only "art," meaning painting, sculpture, cinema, etc.? Or is there a... wider way of approaching aesthetics, where perhaps it matters more often/more regularly to a man's life than simply when he goes to the museum, or sits down to compose a symphony?

Also to approach the same sort of question, I've often felt that a particular landscape -- whether beautiful nature, like a sun-drenched beach scene, or a dynamic cityscape by night -- has "aesthetic appeal," to say nothing of the beauty I find in women, and etc. Clearly, however, these are not objects of "art" until the painter puts them to his easel. Is it a misuse/misunderstanding to say that these experiences have anything to do with "aesthetics"? Or does aesthetics properly deal at all with one's initial experience of beauty, or attraction/repulsion, prior to engaging in specific forms of art?

[Eiuol]

I do think aesthetics as a field should consider more than art. Aesthetics broadly speaking seems to be about one's connection to perception and emotion. That applies to art, of course, but also design and even events in nature like a sunset. Aesthetics can answer questions about what beauty is (surely beauty applies to things besides art), what sort of emotional responses non-art can provide, or the epistemological role of art. My definition is perhaps broad, but my point is that art is not the limit of aesthetic philosophy. I've discussed in other threads about how to define beauty objectively. Check out my thread "Understanding Human Beauty" in this subforum.

Edited by Eiuol, 03 April 2012 - 06:06 PM.

[TheEgoist]

Agreeing with Louie. Rand's aesthetics are definitely lacking in terms of the subject's evaluative relationship with reality, which is what aesthetics really is. I've never studied much aesthetics myself, except a class in emotion theory which dealt with aesthetic judgments of emotional states and their causes. I wonder if there has been any extensive work done by Objectivists on this broader conception of art.

[Grames]

Agreeing with Louie. Rand's aesthetics are definitely lacking in terms of the subject's evaluative relationship with reality, which is what aesthetics really is.

Aesthetics without artists or art-objects is what seems to be lacking.

[whYNOT]

On Esthetics, the Ayn Rand Lexicon quotes Philosophy: Who Needs It? as saying:



Not to devalue art (at all), but is the concern of aesthetics (my preferred spelling) only "art," meaning painting, sculpture, cinema, etc.? Or is there a... wider way of approaching aesthetics, where perhaps it matters more often/more regularly to a man's life than simply when he goes to the museum, or sits down to compose a symphony?

Also to approach the same sort of question, I've often felt that a particular landscape -- whether beautiful nature, like a sun-drenched beach scene, or a dynamic cityscape by night -- has "aesthetic appeal," to say nothing of the beauty I find in women, and etc. Clearly, however, these are not objects of "art" until the painter puts them to his easel. Is it a misuse/misunderstanding to say that these experiences have anything to do with "aesthetics"? Or does aesthetics properly deal at all with one's initial experience of beauty, or attraction/repulsion, prior to engaging in specific forms of art?

On Esthetics, the Ayn Rand Lexicon quotes Philosophy: Who Needs It? as saying:



Not to devalue art (at all), but is the concern of aesthetics (my preferred spelling) only "art," meaning painting, sculpture, cinema, etc.? Or is there a... wider way of approaching aesthetics, where perhaps it matters more often/more regularly to a man's life than simply when he goes to the museum, or sits down to compose a symphony?

Also to approach the same sort of question, I've often felt that a particular landscape -- whether beautiful nature, like a sun-drenched beach scene, or a dynamic cityscape by night -- has "aesthetic appeal," to say nothing of the beauty I find in women, and etc. Clearly, however, these are not objects of "art" until the painter puts them to his easel. Is it a misuse/misunderstanding to say that these experiences have anything to do with "aesthetics"? Or does aesthetics properly deal at all with one's initial experience of beauty, or attraction/repulsion, prior to engaging in specific forms of art?

Your and my aesthetic appeal towards landscapes, human figures, bird-song and so on, obviously have
value for us - filtered through our personal 'senses of life'. A desolate desert scene, for instance,
that I may find beautiful says more about my psycho-epistemology, than about the scene, itself.
The landscape is a "metaphysical given."
I see a kinship here between this and Rand's portrayal of naturalistic art - but may be wrong.
She readily admits that Naturalism can be beautifully and truthfully done. (Don't recall her exact words.)

Romanticism, however, doesn't stop with beauty and aesthetic appeal.
Roughly, it goes on to speak of man's nature and his place in the universe - as filtered through
the artist's metaphysics, epistemology and ethics.
Anyhow, long story short, I can accept that aesthetics is the broad concept, consuming all that
we find pleasing to eye and ear - ie, aesthetically appealing.

[DonAthos]

Okay.

Based on the replies thus far to my initial query, I'm going to pretend as though what I've asked and implied is relatively "uncontroversial": aesthetics may indeed be a wider category of philosophy than simply "the study of art."

If that is the case, then doesn't that potentially have some implication for some of the... er... more controversial controversies which appear to pop up from time to time? To name a couple in which I've personally participated, even in my short stay here on this board...

Consider the debate over "abstract art," and ancillary topics about whether architecture (or others) can likewise be considered art, and etc., at least partially as represented in threads such as this. Expanding aesthetics to treat on "non-art" subjects would not, in itself, answer whether "abstract art" or architecture were properly art, but it might well change the nature of the debate. If as a starting point we granted that architecture has to do with aesthetics in some way, it might become more fruitful for us to try to understand that specific relationship, rather than continue to go back and forth on simply whether it "is art" (which I guess some find debatable -- and some have even laid claim to Rand's having debated it in her later life) or "is not" (which would appear to disqualify architecture from aesthetic appraisal, which seems absurd).

And apart from the obvious utility an expansion of aesthetics would provide to controversies within the field of aesthetics, wouldn't it also be important for us to consider the effect of such an expansion on "the wider world" of Objectivism, and how we approach the philosophy itself? For instance, is it true that Objectivist Esthetics is forever "the study of art" alone, whether that's true for the philosophical branch of aesthetics or not? Or are Objectivist Esthetics truly those aesthetics which proceed from Objectivist Metaphysics, et al., whether they were all explicitly identified by Ayn Rand or not? And if we regard Objectivist Esthetics as being "frozen" as set down by Rand, would identifying aesthetics as being wider than Rand's treatment mean that we must reject Objectivism? Or would we feel comfortable in accepting her claims per "art," but modifying our understanding of aesthetics more generally without needing to reject Objectivism, per se? Would the person who did so "be an Objectivist"?

This post (obviously) is not intended to map out this "wider aesthetics," let alone apply it to these specific controversies and thereby provide definitive answers. But I have begun to ask these questions of myself and, given the nature of this forum, I've decided to share these questions with you, too. I think that there's value in discussing things of this nature (though I've also started to question whether everyone else shares that sentiment -- but that's a rant for another day ).

Thoughts?

[softwareNerd]

Expanding aesthetics to treat on "non-art" subjects would not, in itself, answer whether "abstract art" or architecture were properly art, ...

Would it be a fair summary to say you're suggesting that aesthetics should study the art that is produced simply as art, and should also examine the artistic/aesthetic aspects of things that are not primarily produced as art?

Edited to add: When you think of the referents of "art" do you think Rand's conception (i.e. the things she would include in that set) is significantly different from what any lay person would include? Also, when there are borderline referents -- as happens for all sorts of concepts -- would Rand place substantially different referents in the border-area as compared to some lay person?

Edited by softwareNerd, 11 April 2012 - 09:37 AM.

[Jake]

Aesthetics is the study of beauty.

(Proper) art is applied aesthetics.

N'est pas?

[whYNOT]

Aesthetics is the study of beauty.

(Proper) art is applied aesthetics.

N'est pas?

Hmmm...pas mal, peut-etre vous avez raison.

[Jonathan13]

Based on the replies thus far to my initial query, I'm going to pretend as though what I've asked and implied is relatively "uncontroversial": aesthetics may indeed be a wider category of philosophy than simply "the study of art."

I agree that it is uncontroversial. Throughout history, aesthetics has been a much wider category than simply "the study of art." It includes art, but also deals with the nature of beauty, taste, sentiment and culture outside of the realm of art.

Consider the debate over "abstract art," and ancillary topics about whether architecture (or others) can likewise be considered art, and etc., at least partially as represented in threads such as this. Expanding aesthetics to treat on "non-art" subjects would not, in itself, answer whether "abstract art" or architecture were properly art, but it might well change the nature of the debate. If as a starting point we granted that architecture has to do with aesthetics in someway, it might become more fruitful for us to try to understand that specific relationship, rather than continue to go back and forth on simply whether it "is art" (which I guess some find debatable -- and some have even laid claim to Rand's having debated it in her later life) or "is not" (which would appear to disqualify architecture from aesthetic appraisal, which seems absurd).

To me the issue is more about epistemological consistency than aesthetics. Personally, I'm not very interested in the issue of universally establishing what is and what is not art, and where we should objectively draw the line, and by what standards we can decide which claims that people make about something qualifying as art are valid and which are a vicious attack on all values, etc. No, what I'm interested in is observing the behavior of people who are very uptight about the issue, and who have very specific definitions and criteria about it, and who make very harsh moral judgments about others' beliefs because they deviate from those criteria, but yet they themselves deviate from their own criteria more often than they adhere to them. It's very interesting to watch people condemn others for exactly the same thing that they do themselves, and to see people who have gotten themselves so confused that they actually believe that abstract forms in a work of architecture are somehow deeply meaningful, but the exact same abstract forms in a painting or sculpture are magically somehow meaningless and an attack on man's proper method cognition!

And apart from the obvious utility an expansion of aesthetics would provide to controversies within the field of aesthetics, wouldn't it also be important for us to consider the effect of such an expansion on "the wider world" of Objectivism, and how we approach the philosophy itself? For instance, is it true that Objectivist Esthetics is forever "the study of art" alone, whether that's true for the philosophical branch of aesthetics or not?

Rand did talk and write about beauty, taste, etc., independently of art, but perhaps didn't realize that she was discussing aesthetics when doing so. Maybe because she was so literary-based, when giving her definition of "esthetics" she hadn't yet realized how much more there is to aesthetics beyond her literary view? I think that there is much on the subject that she wasn't aware of and hadn't thought through very carefully. I think that she offered a brilliant view of her own theory of literature, but was rather hasty in trying to expand it to cover all of the art forms.

Or are Objectivist Esthetics truly those aesthetics which proceed from Objectivist Metaphysics, et al., whether they were all explicitly identified by Ayn Rand or not? And if we regard Objectivist Esthetics as being "frozen" as set down by Rand, would identifying aesthetics as being wider than Rand's treatment mean that we must reject Objectivism? Or would we feel comfortable in accepting her claims per "art," but modifying our understanding of aesthetics more generally without needing to reject Objectivism, per se? Would the person who did so "be an Objectivist"?

I think that one can accept the Objectivist Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics and Politics and reject aspects of the Objectivist Esthetics. In fact, I think that if one adopts the Objectivist principle of non-contradiction, then one is required to reject aspects of the Objectivist Esthetics. The Objectivist Esthetics does not sufficiently, objectively or self-consistently identify the nature of all art.

J

[DonAthos]

Would it be a fair summary to say you're suggesting that aesthetics should study the art that is produced simply as art, and should also examine the artistic/aesthetic aspects of things that are not primarily produced as art?

Honestly? I don't know. When it comes to expressing/exploring these burgeoning ideas, I feel like I'm still in the process of trying to figure out exactly what I'm suggesting, either specifically or summarily. But I think that there might be common elements between art and the "aesthetic aspects of things" which are not primarily produced as art (or perhaps not even "produced" at all, like a sunset, or a beautiful woman), and I suspect that, yes, aesthetics as a field would address itself to those common aesthetic elements.

I find myself wondering whether aesthetics is "the study of art... and things like art"...? Or whether a theory of art might not itself be properly subsumed within a larger aesthetic theory.

Edited to add: When you think of the referents of "art" do you think Rand's conception (i.e. the things she would include in that set) is significantly different from what any lay person would include?

No, I would not expect any significant difference.

Also, when there are borderline referents -- as happens for all sorts of concepts -- would Rand place substantially different referents in the border-area as compared to some lay person?

No. Again, I wouldn't expect so.

Agreeing with Louie. Rand's aesthetics are definitely lacking in terms of the subject's evaluative relationship with reality, which is what aesthetics really is.

I find this phrase "the subject's evaluative relationship with reality" to be very interesting, and perhaps akin to my own nascent views on the issue.

Based on the replies thus far to my initial query, I'm going to pretend as though what I've asked and implied is relatively "uncontroversial": aesthetics may indeed be a wider category of philosophy than simply "the study of art."

I agree that it is uncontroversial. Throughout history, aesthetics has been a much wider category than simply "the study of art." It includes art, but also deals with the nature of beauty, taste, sentiment and culture outside of the realm of art.

Do you think that Rand made a conscious decision to limit her explicit study of aesthetics to art? And if so, do you think she did so on any specific basis?

Consider the debate over "abstract art," and ancillary topics about whether architecture (or others) can likewise be considered art, and etc. [...]

To me the issue is more about epistemological consistency than aesthetics. [...]

I think epistemological consistency is an important issue, worthy of consideration in its own right, and that's a fine angle to take if that's what interests you. But I'd personally also like to clear up the score with regards to aesthetics, as such. Frankly, I've found the arguments you've made about abstract visual art compelling, and should those arguments continue to seem correct to me, I would find it at least as important to come to terms with the reality of that situation as I would to point out any hypocrisy in those who would deny it.

I tend to hold the belief that truth will win out in the end. I can't force anyone else into "seeing the truth of things," of course, and it's difficult enough to be consistently honest with myself and give the world the attention it deserves. But I guess that's why I'd rather make the right argument for assessing aesthetics (or anything else) properly, and then just let others come to terms with it as they can.

Rand did talk and write about beauty, taste, etc., independently of art, but perhaps didn't realize that she was discussing aesthetics when doing so.

You know, in approaching this topic, I gave thought to Rand's description of the New York city skyline, and its majesty. (Or perhaps I'm just imagining reading such a passage? But I think it's there, somewhere.) And I wondered -- does my appreciation for that skyline only exist when I'm reading Rand's passage? Or looking at an artist's framed painting of it? What of my experience and thoughts as I'm looking at the skyline itself. While not a "work of art" strictly, I may find inspiration there to paint the skyline, or write poetically of it. Does not that initial experience fall within the purview of aesthetic consideration?

I suspect that it does.

I think that one can accept the Objectivist Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics and Politics and reject aspects of the Objectivist Esthetics. In fact, I think that if one adopts the Objectivist principle of non-contradiction, then one is required to reject aspects of the Objectivist Esthetics. The Objectivist Esthetics does not sufficiently, objectively or self-consistently identify the nature of all art.

This may be an inescapable conclusion.

Edited by DonAthos, 15 April 2012 - 12:29 PM.

[Eiuol]

While not a "work of art" strictly, I may find inspiration there to paint the skyline, or write poetically of it. Does not that initial experience fall within the purview of aesthetic consideration?

I don't think anyone here would say it does not fall within aesthetic consideration. The trickier thing is how to evaluate a scene for beauty, and objectively. I suppose to bring out a discussion from your question in the OP, how would you evaluate a skyline?