Re-thinking Aesthetics
Re-considering Philosophy and Aesthetics
T h e th e m e o f th is c o n g r e s s , » A esth etics as P h ilo s o p h y ,« o ffe rs a ric h o p p o rtu n ity fo r re fle c tio n o n th e m ean in g s a n d uses o f b o th aesthetics an d p h ilo so p h y . W ith th e c h a lle n g e o f c o n te m p o ra ry d ev elo p m en ts in th e arts a n d th e re c o g n itio n o f th e diversity an d u niqueness o f h u m a n cultures, m any d iffe re n t in te rp re ta tio n s will surely em erg e in th e days to follow. M oreover, th e tim ing o f this congress a t the en d o f the m illennium , while hardly a cosmic o c c u rre n c e , still offers a n u n u s u a l o p p o rtu n ity fo r p ro fo u n d reassessm ent o f b o th a e sth e tic s a n d ph ilo so p h y . I shall only b eg in a process h e r e th a t will su rely c o n tin u e in th e days th a t follow.
A esthetics is o fte n th o u g h t o f as o n e b ra n c h o f philosophy, som etim es, in d e e d , a se c o n d a ry b r a n c h o f little significance fo r th e b ro a d reach e s o f p h ilo s o p h ic th o u g h t. T h is is so m ew h at o d d , since R an t, w ho is g en erally re g a rd e d as a fo u n d in g fig u re in m o d e rn philosophy, to o k the ae sth etic as his ep istem o lo g ical fo u n d a tio n a n d th en d eveloped a th eo ry o f th e aesthetic as th e system atic u n ifie r o f know ledg e a n d m orality. A n d a t a g a th e rin g o f aesth e tic ia n s fro m all parts o f th e world, it requires little arg u m e n t to dismiss th e low r e p u te o f aesth etics a n d acknow ledge its philo so p h ical significance.
B ecause o f K a n t’s e n o rm o u s historical im p o rtan ce , how ever, it m a y b e m o re d ifficu lt to re c o n s id e r his d o m in a n t influence o n the discipline o f aesthetics.
Yet th a t is p recisely w h a t I sh o u ld like to p ro p o se h e re . F o r w hat co u ld be m o re in k e e p in g w ith b o th th e critical tra d itio n o f p h ilo so p h ic al th o u g h t a n d th e o p e n n e s s o f a e sth e tic p e rc e p tio n th a n to re -th in k th e fo u n d a tio n s o f o u r d iscip lin e.
In th e sp irit o f » aesthetics as philosophy,« th en , I p ro p o se a rad ical re
e x a m in a tio n o f th e fo u n d a tio n s of m o d e rn aesthetics. T his k in d o f ex p lo ra
tio n is a t th e sam e tim e a p ro fo u n d ly p h ilo so p h ic al act, fo r p h ilo so p h ic al p re m ises lie a t th e very fo u n d a tio n o f m o d e rn aesthetics. E x p lo rin g these p re m ises, in d e e d c h a lle n g in g th em , can le a d us to a new basis fo r aesthetics d e riv e d fro m aesthetic in q u iry a n d n o t as an a fte rth o u g h t o f a p h ilo so p h ic al tra d itio n w hose o rig in s w ere q u ite in d e p e n d e n t o f th e ae sth etic d o m ain . Conversely, re -th in k in g aesthetics may suggest new ways o f d o in g philosophy.
The Radical Critique o f Aesthetics
In re c e n t years aesthetics has h a d s o m e th in g o f a revival a n d is slowly e m e rg in g fro m its p h ilo so p h ic al eclipse. A t th e sam e tim e, it has b e e n th e subject o f serious criticism an d fu n d am en tal re co n sid eratio n . L et m e m e n tio n two very d iffe re n t exam ples.
In The Ideology o f the Aesthetic, Terry' E a g le to n dev elo p s a po litico-social critiq u e o f aesthetics, p lacin g it »at th e h e a r t o f th e m id d le class’s stru g g le fo r political h eg em o n y .« 1 D espite its p ro te sta tio n s o f a u to n o m y , E a g le to n sees the ae sth e tic in its historical co m p lex ity as a w in do w in to c u ltu ra l a n d political changes. F rom this perspective, th e very a u to n o m y c la im e d fo r th e a e s th e tic se rv e s a l a r g e r p o litic a l p u r p o s e as a m o d e l f o r b o u r g e o is individualism , th a t is, o f its own claim s to au to n o m y . T h u s th e a e s th e tic is two-edged: It rep resen ts the political asp ira tio n s to se lf-d e te rm in a tio n o f th e m id d le class a n d p ro v id e s an u n c o n s t r a in e d lo c u s f o r s e n s ib ility a n d im agination. At th e sam e tim e, how ever, th e a e sth e tic serves to in te rn a liz e social pow er, re n d e rin g it, th ro u g h its tra n sfo rm a tio n in to subjectivity, all th e m o re effective a rep ressiv e fo rc e .2 In a la rg e r se n se , th e n , a e s th e tic a u to n o m y is sp ecio u s, fo r th e a e s th e tic is n o t a u to n o m o u s a t all b u t is h arn e sse d to a larg er, political, p u rp o se . P e rh a p s this m ig h t b e c a lle d , with a p o lo g ie s to K ant, p u rp o s e w ith o u t p u rp o s iv e n e s s - a u ti li t a r ia n g o al m a sq u e ra d in g u n d e r th e guise o f b e in g self-co n tain ed .
U n lik e E a g le to n ’s s u b s u m p tio n o f a e s th e tic s u n d e r h is to ric a l a n d political p u rp o se s, W olfgang W elsch c e n te rs his c ritiq u e o n th e a e sth e tic , itself. H e finds th a t the aesthetic n o t only p ervades th e w hole o f m o d e rn life b u t lies a t th e h e a rt o f p h ilo so p h ic al th o u g h t. T h e a e sth e tic c o n c e rn s n o t ju s t a rt b u t h u m a n cu ltu re en tout, a n d it spreads o u t to in fo rm th e very fab ric o f m eaning, truth, an d reality. T hus c o n te m p o ra ry aesth eticizatio n processes cover th e su rface o f o u r w orld a n d re a c h b e y o n d to sh a p e social as well as m a te ria l re a lity , a ffe c tin g th e fo rm o f in d iv id u a ls ’ e x is te n c e , o f so c ia l in te ra c tio n , a n d th e very sh ap e o f c u ltu re , itself.3 M o re p rov ocative still is W elsch ’s a rg u m e n t fo r ep istem o lo g ical a e s th e tic iz a tio n , in w h ich » tru th , know ledge, a n d reality have increasingly a ssu m ed a e sth e tic c o n to u rs .« 4 All this lead s h im to an » a e sth e tic s b e y o n d a e s th e tic s ,« w h ic h tak es th r e e p rin cip a l d irectio n s: e x p a n d in g a e s th e tic p e r c e p tio n to th e full ra n g e o f aisthesis, en larging the ra n g e o f a rt to in c lu d e b o th th e m ultiplicity o f its in n e r 1 Terry Eagleton, The Ideology o f the Aesthetic (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), p. 3.
2 The Ideology o f the Aesthetic, pp. 23, 28.
3 Wolfgang Welsch, Undoing Aesthetics (London: Sage, 1997), pp. 5-7.
4 Undoing Aesthetics, p. 23.
aspects a n d d ie m an y ways in w hich a rt pervades the w hole o f cu ltu re , an d finally, e x te n d in g ae sth e tic s bey o n d a rt to society a n d th e life-world.5
I fin d th ese critiques o f aesthetics b o th im p o rta n t a n d convincing. T hey h e r a ld a new stage in p h ilo so p h ic a l d ev e lo p m e n t, o n e th a t recognizes the fu n d a m e n ta l p lace o f ae sth e tic s in b o th th e criticism a n d co n stru c tio n o f c o n te m p o ra ry c u ltu re a n d o f o u r very grasp o f reality. Yet fo r all th e ir b ro a d th ru s t, I b eliev e th a t th ey d o n o t go q u ite d e e p en o u g h . E agleton encloses a e sth e tic s in its p o litica l a n d histo rical c o n te x t, while W elsch e x p a n d s th e a e s th e tic in to a p o w erful c u ltu ra l force. N e ith e r c e n te rs his critiq u e on th e a e sth e tic , itself.
Yet th e a e sth e tic th e o ry they w ork w ith stands sq u a re in th e c e n te r o f th e very p h ilo so p h ic tra d itio n they questio n . A nd u n til th e defects in this tra d itio n a re ex p o se d a n d re p la c e d , any critiq u e o f aesth etics m erely snaps a t th e heels o f a sluggish th o u g h still powerful beast. T h e d o m ain o f aesthetics n e e d s to b e in v a d e d by a T ro ja n h o rse, by a critiq u e fro m w ithin th e theory.
In th e p lu ralistic sp irit o f p o stm o d ern ism , th e n , I believe th a t still m o re can b e said, a n d this from th e s ta n d p o in t n o t o f cu ltu re o r o f history b u t o f th e a e sth e tic itself. T h e r e are artistic g ro u n d s for a critiq u e o f aesthetics, an d th e re a re p h ilo so p h ic a l g ro u n d s, as well. A bove all, th e re are ex p e rie n tia l g ro u n d s. N o n e o f th ese is in d e p e n d e n t o f historical a n d cu ltu ral forces, b u t a t th e sam e tim e they c a n n o t be re d u c e d to these forces. T h e critiq u e o f ae sth e tic s m u s t take p la c e o n m any levels a n d in m any form s.
Difficulties in Traditional Aesthetics
W e ste rn ae sth e tic s has b e e n fo rm e d th ro u g h two m ajor in flu en ces - first classical G reek , a n d th e n E n lig h te n m e n t th o u g h t, p articu larly as it was fo rm u la te d by K ant. O f co u rse, these a re closely re la ted . Yet new stran d s o f th o u g h t em e rg in g since the eig h tee n th century suggest sharply d iffe ren t ways o f c o n c e iv in g ae sth e tic s. I f I ca n c h a ra c te riz e th e d o m in a n t tra d itio n in a e sth e tic s as K an tian , w h at we n e e d to ex p lo re are th e possibilities o f a n on- Kan tian a e sth e tic s o r, b e tte r yet, a post-K antian aesthetics, an d to co n sid er th e ch a racteristics su ch a radically d iffe ren t aesthetics m ig h t display. I w ould like to tak e th e o c c a sio n o f th is co n g ress, a n d its p ro vocativ e th e m e , to ex a m in e som e o f th ese possibilities a n d to suggest a new a n d d ifferen t course th a t a e sth e tic s m ig h t follow.
T h e b e g in n in g s o f m o v e m e n t away from K ant ca n b e trac ed back to
Undoing Aesthetics, pp. 95-99.
the m id d le o f th e last century. W ith his p e n e tr a tin g eye a n d d ire c tn e ss o f expression, N ietzsche recognized the fu n d a m e n ta l difficulty w ith tra d itio n a l aesthetics: »K ant h a d th o u g h t h e was d o in g a h o n o r to a r t w h e n , a m o n g th e predicates o f beauty, h e gave p ro m in e n c e to tho se w hich fla tte r th e intellect, i.e., im personality a n d universality.... K ant, like all p h ilo s o p h e rs, in s te a d o f viewing th e esthetic issue from th e side o f th e artist, envisaged a rt a n d b eau ty solely fro m th e ‘sp e c ta to r’s’ p o in t o f view, a n d so, w ith o u t h im s e lf re alizin g it, sm uggled the ‘sp ec ta to r’ in to th e c o n c e p t o f beauty.... [W ]e have g o t from these p hilo so p h ers o f beauty definitio ns w hich, like K a n t’s fam o u s d e fin itio n o f beauty , a re m a rre d by a c o m p le te lack o f e s th e tic sen sibility . ‘T h a t is b e a u t i f u l , ’ K a n t p r o c la im s , ‘w h ic h g iv es u s d i s i n t e r e s t e d p l e a s u r e . ’ D isinterested!«6
B ut it is n o t only the artist for w hom d isinterestedness is n o t a p p ro p ria te . If th e a p p re c ia to r ab a n d o n s th e objectifying, analytic s ta n c e o f th e s c h o la r o r critic, the kind o f p ersonal p artic ip a tio n th a t h e o r sh e eng ag es in is clo ser to th a t o f th e artist th a n to the » p h ilo so p h e r o f beauty« o f w h o m N ietzsch e spoke so disparagingly. I like to call this active a p p re c ia tiv e p a rtic ip a tio n
» a e sth e tic e n g a g e m e n t,« fo r it b e s t c h a ra c te riz e s th e k in d o f p o w e rfu l personal involvem ent th a t we have in o u r m o st fulfilled a e sth etic e x p e rie n c e . T h e r e a re o t h e r re a s o n s fo r w a n tin g to d is c a r d th e n o t i o n o f d is in te restedness. T h e a ttitu d e it enjoins lead s to d is ta n c in g th e a r t o b je c t a n d to circu m scrib in g it with clea r b o u n d a rie s th a t iso late it fro m th e re s t o f th e h u m a n w o rld. In th e e ig h te e n th c e n tu r y w h e n th e fin e a rts w e re b e in g id en tified , se p a ra te d from the o th e r arts, a n d given a distin ctiv e status, an a e s th e tic s th a t in s titu tio n a liz e d th is p ro c e s s a n d c o n f e r r e d a s p e c ia l p ro m in e n c e on those arts h a d its value. W ith w id e sp re a d a c c e p ta n c e o f th e identity an d im portance o f the arts, such a n e e d n o lo n g e r exists. T o eternalize an id ea w hose significance is now largely histo rical b o th ex ag g erates its place a n d h in d e rs aesth etic inquiry. A nd it m isd irects a n d o b stru c ts a p p re c ia tiv e e x p e rie n c e .7
D isin terested n ess is n o t the o n ly o n e o f K a n t’s b e q u e s ts th a t ca n b e c h a lle n g e d . E ig h te e n th c e n tu ry a e sth e tic s is very m u c h a p r o d u c t o f th e th in k in g o f th e tim es. It p laces in fu ll view b o th its re lia n c e o n fa c u lty psychology a n d th e e ss e n tia liz in g a n d u n iv e rs a liz in g p h ilo s o p h y o f th e E n lig h te n m e n t. F u rth e rm o re , it im p o ses a scien tific m o d e l o n a e s th e tic u n d e rs ta n d in g , a m o d el th a t p ro c e e d s by o b je c tific a tio n , d isse c tio n , a n d analysis. T h u s th e co n c ep tu al stru c tu re th a t we have in h e r ite d fro m K an t
*’ F riedrich Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals, T h ird Essay, 6.
7 I have developed a constructive critiq u e o f d isin te re ste d n e ss in »B eyond D isin te
restedness,« British Journal o f Aesthetics, 3 4 /3 (July 1994).
id e n tifie s d istin c t a n d s e p a ra te m odalities o f p e rc e p tio n a n d co n c e p tio n , b e g in n in g with th a t fam ous distinction itself. T o separate p ercep t an d co n cep t p ro d u c e s a p ro b le m so m e ae sth etician s c o n tin u e to g ra p p le with: th e place o f k n o w le d g e in th e p e r c e p t u a l e x p e r i e n c e o f a r t. T h e r e a r e o t h e r p ro b le m a tic o p p o sitio n s in th e e ig h te e n th ce n tu ry ae sth e tic , such as those b e tw e e n s e n s e a n d r e a s o n , i n t e r e s t a n d d is i n te r e s t , a n d illu s io n o r im a g in a tio n a n d reality. In th e c o n te x t o f E n lig h te n m e n t ration alism , these d is tin c tio n s w ere illu m in a tin g an d lib era tin g . T od ay th ey p ro vide a false clarity a n d a d e c e p tiv e o rd e r, a n d they e n th ra ll b o th u n d e rs ta n d in g an d e x p e rie n c e . S erious q u e stio n s can b e raised a b o u t w h e th e r we can speak e ith e r o f re a so n o r o f sense w ith o u t th e o n e in clu d in g th e o th e r, question s s u p p o r t e d b o t h b y p s y c h o lo g ic a l r e s e a r c h a n d l a t e r p h il o s o p h ic a l d ev e lo p m e n ts. Sim ilarly, th e purity o f disinterestedness is difficult to d efend, esp ecially as b o th th e m o tiv a tio n a n d the c o n su m p tio n o f a rt have b e e n a b so rb e d in to th e co m m o d ificatio n o f cu ltu re .8 A n d th e th eo re tic al force o f existential p h en o m en o lo g y , herm en eutics, d econstruction, a n d philosophical prag m atism have u n d e rm in e d claims to objectivity, the re d u c tio n o f com plex w holes to sim p le c o n stitu e n ts, a n d th e h eg e m o n y o f scientific cog nition .
W e n e e d d iffe re n t th e o re tic a l tools fo r ca p tu rin g th e special c h a ra c te r o f a e s th e tic a p p r e c ia tio n , sp ec ia l even th o u g h it n e e d n o t b e u n iq u e o r u n c o n n e c te d w ith o th e r d o m a in s o f h u m a n cu ltu re. F u rth e rm o re , w hat is especially striking a b o u t b o th th e intellectual and technological developm ents o f o u r own tim e is th e e x te n t to w hich the n o tio n o f reality has b ee n en larg ed a n d m u ltip lie d . H e rm e n e u tic s a n d d e c o n stru c tio n have p ro v id ed g ro u n d s fo r c o e x iste n t in te rp re ta tio n s , a n d these have g e n e ra te d a plurality o f truths.
F r o m a d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n , p h il o s o p h ic a l p r a g m a tis m a n d r e l a t e d a p p ro a c h e s , su ch as B u c h le r’s p rin c ip le o f o n to lo g ical parity, have laid the th e o r e t ic a l g r o u n d s fo r a m e ta p h y sic s o f m u ltip le r e a litie s .9 T h e very o b je c tiv ity o f b o t h h is to r y a n d sc ie n c e h a s b e e n u n d e r m i n e d by o u r re c o g n itio n o f th e co n stitu tiv e in flu en c e o f social, cu ltu ra l, a n d historical fo rc e s, a n d th is h as b e g u n to b e co d ifie d in th e social sciences. Finally, c o n te m p o ra ry in d u strial societies in h ab it the virtual w orld o f film, television, 8 I have d eveloped a critiq u e o f K antian aesthetics in »The H istoricity o f Aesthetics I,«
The British Journal o f Aesthetics, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Spring 1986), 101-111; »The Historicity of A esthetics II,« The British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 26, No. 3 (S um m er 1986), 195-203.
{J See, in p articu la r, W illiam Jam es, Essays in Radical Empiricism (Lincoln and London:
U niversity o f N ebraska Press, 1996) ; William jam es, A Pluralistic Universe (Lincoln and L ondon: University of N ebraska Press, 1996); a n d ju stu s Buchler, Metaphysics of Natural Complexes (New York: C olum bia University Press, 1966). 2nd ed itio n (State University o f New Y ork Press, 1990). I have carried aesthetic theory in a sim ilar direction in Art and Engagement, (P hiladelphia: T em ple University Press, 1991).
a n d cyberspace, »media-reality,« as W elsch calls it,10 a reality we have c re a te d that, ironically e n o u g h , strangely re sem b le s th e A frican B u s h m e n ’s b e lie f in c reatio n as a d re a m d re a m in g u s.11
O n e o f the lessons o f p o st-m o d ern ism , a lesson p o s t-m o d e rn is m d id n o t in v e n t, is th a t c u ltu ra l tra d itio n s a n d so c ia l in f lu e n c e s s h a p e o u r p e rc e p tu a l e x p e rie n c e so th o ro u g h ly th a t th e r e is n o s u c h th in g as p u re p e rc e p tio n , a n d th a t to discuss it, even as a th e o re tic a l categ o ry , is g reatly m isleading. B ut K antian aesthetics is b u ilt u p o n th e c o n c e p tu a l s tru c tu re o f eig h tee n th century psychology th a t considers reason, sense, im ag in atio n , a n d feeling as faculties o f the m ind. F o rm e d in th e in te re s t o f ra tio n a liz in g a n d u n iv e rsa liz in g k n o w led g e, th e se vastly sim plify th e c o m p le x c o n te x tu a l c h a ra c te r o f h u m a n ex p e rien ce . T o take th e m sep a rately a n d tr e a t th e m as distinct a n d in d e p e n d e n t faculties o r capacities creates divisions th a t we th e n are faced w ith reconciling. T h in k o f th e vast a m o u n t o f a tte n tio n d e v o te d to d e fe n d in g im ag in atio n against re a so n , iso latin g u n iq u e a e s th e tic q u alities, a n d re c o n c ilin g expression with form .
T h e conclusion to w hich all this leads, w h e th e r o r n o t it is c o m fo rta b le o r d esirab le, is inescapable. T h e id e a o f a ra tio n a l u n iv erse , o f a n objective, system atic o rd e r, m u st be re le g a te d to a display case in a m u se u m o f th e history o f ideas. P h ilosophy has c o n s tru c te d o p p o sin g fo rces th a t it is th e n faced w ith reconciling, a contrived p rocess th a t is rarely successful. W e n e e d to re -th in k these ideas, n o t w ith th e in te n t o f clarifying th e m by s h a r p e n in g their differences, b u t exactly the o pposite - by show ing th e ir in te rp e n e tra tio n , th e ir co n tin u ity , a n d a t tim es even th e ir fusion, p e rh a p s w ith th e h o p e o f achieving a k in d o f Spinozistic u n ity th a t sees th e m as asp ects o f a c o m m o n substance.
A New Direction fo r Aesthetics
W h a t is left o f aesthetics if we tu rn away fro m th e K a n tian tra d itio n ? W hat w ould a new aesthetics, a post-K antian aesthetic, lo o k like? If we discard th e categ o ries o f faculty psychology - sense, im a g in a tio n , feelin g , m em o ry , reason, taste; if we fo reg o th e classical th ru s t o f p h ilo so p h y to u n iv ersalize a n d dism iss the puzzles over e m o tio n , ex p re ssio n , re p re s e n ta tio n , a n d th e like th a t arise from the frag m en tatio n o f th e w orld o f a rt in to sp ec ta to r, artist, an d w ork o f art; w hat th e n is left? If we literally re -th in k aesth etics, w h at k in d o f in telle ctu al c re a tio n will em erg e, w h at k in d o f c r e a tu re will b e b o rn ? 10 Welsch, op. cit., p. 86.
11 Lawrence van der Post, The Lost World o f the Kalahari (New York: H arc o u rt Brace, 1977).
L e t m e take this o ccasio n to suggest a p ro g ram fo r th e d iffe ren t so rt o f th in k in g th a t I believe m u s t g u id e o u r in q u iry in aesthetics in a new a n d d iffe re n t d irec tio n :
1. R elin q u ish th e substan tiv e categories we have in h e rite d from e ig h te e n th c e n tu ry psychology a n d re p la ce th em with adjectival a n d adverbial form s o f su ch p h e n o m e n a . ‘S e n sa tio n ’ th e n beco m es ‘sen sory,’ ‘p e rc e p tio n ’ b e c o m e s ‘p e r c e p tu a l,’ ‘c o g n itio n ’ ‘cog nitive,’ etc.
2. R ep lace u n iv ersa liz atio n w ith a pluralistic ac c o u n t a n d ex p lo re to w hat e x te n t th e re a re c e rta in c o m m o n p h e n o m e n a th a t a p p e a r in d iffe re n t artistic a n d a e sth e tic c u ltu re s. F rom this we can le a rn w hat d eg rees o f g e n e r a l i t y c a n b e d i s c e r n e d a n d w h e th e r th e s e a r e h e lp f u l a n d illu m i n a t i n g o r, o n th e c o n tra ry , w h e th e r th e y o b s c u r e i m p o r ta n t d iffe re n c e s th a t re q u ir e re c o g n itio n .
3. R e la te d to this, give a p rim a ry p lace to varying c u ltu ra l tra d itio n s in aesthetics, a n d to th e o n g o in g histories o f th o u g h t a n d o f exp erien ce th at th ey reflect. N o t only d o th e d iffe re n t arts have th e ir own histories; they a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d in d i f f e r e n t ways in d i f f e r e n t c u ltu r a l tr a d itio n s . E x a m in in g th ese will n o t only en c o u ra g e a d e g re e o f hum ility in b o th th e s c h o la r a n d th e a p p r e c ia to r; a t th e sam e tim e it will e n ric h o u r capacities fo r a e sth e tic p e rc e p tio n a n d en la rg e its ra n g e a n d co n te n t.
4. R esist th e te n d e n c y o f essentialist th in k in g to iden tify single forces an d facto rs to illu m in a te th e ae sth e tic process, such as e m o tio n , expression, o r m e a n i n g , a n d lo o k in s te a d fo r c o m p le x itie s , fo r c h a ra c te ris tic g ro u p in g s o f in flu e n c e s , fo r in te rre la tio n s h ip s , fo r a p p r o p ria te a n d varying c o n tex ts.
5. C o n sid e r ae sth e tic s n o t as th e special d o m a in o f a value sharply d istin ct from o th e r k inds o f values, in cluding m oral, practical, social, an d political o n es, b u t lo o k fo r th e sp ecial c o n trib u tio n aesth etic value can m ake to th e n o rm a tiv e co m p lex ity th a t pervades a n d is in sep arab le fro m every re g io n o f th e h u m a n re alm . A esthetic value can b e distinctive w ith o u t b e in g s e p a ra te , u n iq u e ly v alu ab le w ith o u t b e in g sin g u la r, im p o rta n t w ith o u t b e in g p u re , a n d occupy a critical place in h u m a n cu ltu re w ithout b e in g iso lated.
6. D evelop th e g ro u n d s fo r an aesthetic-based criticism , n o t only o f th e arts b u t o f c u l t u r e a n d k n o w le d g e , fo r th e s e to o h a v e t h e ir a e s th e tic d im en sio n s. S u ch criticism sh o u ld be d ire c te d n o t only at th e ir c o n te n t b u t, even m o re im p o rta n t, tow ard th e ir p re su p p o sitio n s.
N o w h e re is criticism m o re n e e d e d , how ever, th an o f aesthetic th eo ry itself. F o r p h ilo s o p h ic a l in flu e n c e s o n th e o ry have c o m e , n o t fro m an in v estig atio n o f a e sth e tic sensibility, b u t largely fro m th e o n to lo gical an d
epistem ological fram ew ork o f the W estern p h ilo so p h ical trad itio n th a t m oves from classical sources, th ro u g h its a p p ro p ria tio n by E n lig h te n m e n t th in k ers, into th e p re sen t. It is a tra d itio n th a t h as e x to lle d co n te m p la tiv e re a s o n a n d has b e e n suspicious o f th e body a n d th e full ra n g e o f h u m a n sensibility. As a c o n s e q u e n c e , we a re p r e s e n t e d w ith a n a r r a y o f issu e s t h a t h a v e a p h ilosophical ra th e r th a n an aesthetic source. A m o n g th ese we ca n cite such divisive o p p o sitio n s as tho se b etw een su rface (as in a e sth e tic q u alitie s) a n d substance, form a n d c o n te n t, illusion a n d reality, s p e c ta to r a n d w o rk o f a r t (th a t is, s u b je c t a n d o b je c t), a n d b e a u ty a n d u se ( t h a t is, in tr in s ic a n d in stru m e n ta l v alu es). T h ese have a ssu m ed o n to lo g ic a l status a n d m isd ire c t aesth etic in q u iry in a frag m en tary a n d o p p o sitio n a l d ire c tio n . All o f th ese derive fro m the u n d u e in flu en c e o f this p h ilo so p h ic a l tra d itio n o n a e sth e tic theory, in p a rtic u la r from its cognitive m o d el.
Aesthetic Engagement, an Aesthetics o f Context and Continuity
My own view favors a pluralistic ae sth etic th a t allows fo r th e fullest ra n g e o f creative m ak in g in all th e h u m a n arts a n d in all th e ir d iv erse c u ltu ra l m anifestations. W e n e e d n o t be so c o n c e rn e d w ith h ie ra rc h y , w ith invidious rankings, b u t ra th e r with studying how th e se arts fu n c tio n in society a n d in e x p e r ie n c e - w h a t n e e d s th e y fu lfill, w h a t p u r p o s e s th e y s e rv e , w h a t satisfactions they offer, a n d how th ey e x te n d h u m a n ca p acities to p erceiv e a n d u n d e rsta n d . Such an aesth etic, m o reo v e r, e x te n d s b e y o n d th e arts to th e w o rld in w h ic h we live, to th e n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t, to t h e b u i l t e n v iro n m e n t, to com m unity, to p e rs o n a l re la tio n s. T h ese , n e g le c te d u n til recently, b e g fo r scholarly a n d scientific a tte n tio n so th a t th ey ca n a d d n o t only to th e ra n g e o f kno w led g e b u t so th a t th e y c a n clarify a n d e n la r g e regions o f e x p e rie n c e o ften u n a tte n d e d to a n d h id d e n .
S uch a n aesth etic sensibility, o n e th a t re co g n izes its in te g ra tio n in th e life o f h u m a n cultures, is an aesthetics o f c o n te x t a n d continuity. N o t set a p a rt in g ra n d b u t lonely isolation, the ae sth e tic d o m a in o f e x p e rie n c e infuses th e m any a n d varied activities in w hich we e n g a g e , fro m daily tasks to p o p u la r cu ltu re . It also re tain s its significance fo r th o se arts th a t focus o n a n d distill th e m ost in te n se a n d p ro fo u n d m o m e n ts o f e x p e rie n c e , th e so-called fin e arts. B u t th e se , to o , in flu e n c e a n d e n t e r in to th e w id e ra n g e o f h u m a n e x p e rien ce . We m u st s u rre n d e r th e m yth o f p u rity a lo n g w ith th e m yth o f exclusivity.
I call this »aesthetic engagem ent,« fo r it n o t only recognizes a n d ex ten d s th e co n n e ctio n s o f ae sth etic e x p e rie n c e b u t invites o u r total in v o lv e m e n t as
active p a rtic ip a n ts. A e sth etic e n g a g e m e n t is m o re a descriptive th eo ry th a n a p re scrip tiv e o n e: It reflects th e activity o f th e artist, th e p e rfo rm e r, a n d th e a p p r e c ia to r as th ese c o m b in e in ae sth etic ex p e rien ce . A n d it is a th eo ry t h a t re fle c ts th e w o rld we p a r tic ip a te in, n o t th e illu so ry s p le n d o r o f a p h ilo so p h ic a l fantasy.
* * *
I re alize th a t th e se a re iconoclastic pro p o sals an d th a t they ch a lle n g e m any o f th e stro n g e st su p p o rts a n d firm est convictions o f m o d e rn aesthetics.
B u t w h e th e r o r n o t you a g re e w ith m e, I h o p e you will take these p ro po sals as a n in cen tiv e to re c o n s id e r th e axiom s o f aesthetics, a n d w ork to sh ap e th e o r y to th e fa c ts o f a r t a n d e x p e r ie n c e . T o b e g in th is p ro c e s s , n o o p p o rtu n ity is b e tte r th a n th ese days in L jubljana. Bonne chance!v2
121 have developed aspects o f this critique in m any places. T hese include: Living in the Landscape: Toward an Aesthetics of Environment (Lawrence: U niversity Press of Kansas, 1997); The Aesthetic Field: A Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience (Springfield, 111.: C. C.
T hom as, 1970); in Art and Engagement, and in a n u m b e r o f re c e n t papers.
