View of Philosophical Aesthetics and the Aesthetics of Everyday Life

Philosophical Aesthetics and the Aesthetics o f Everyday Life

Introduction

T h e c e n tra l aim o f the X lV th In te rn a tio n a l C on gress o f A esthetics was to illu m in ate th e n a tu re o f aesth etics as philosophy. T h e th e m e inevitably m akes o n e th in k a b o u t the o th e r side o f it as well. T h en , th e q u estio n is, w hat is n o n -p h ilo so p h ic a l aesthetics?

T h e focus o f this p a p e r is th e re la tio n sh ip betw een p h ilo so p h ic a l aes­

thetics a n d o th e r form s o f ae sth e tic p ractice, a n d I believe th a t th e n a tu re o f aesthetics as p h ilo so p h y can b e tte r b e u n d e rs to o d c o m p a rin g it w ith n o n - p h ilo so p h ic al aesthetics.

I will c o n c e n tra te o n n o n -p h ilo so p h ic a l aesthetics, esp ecially o n th e aesth etics o f everyday life, a n d o u tlin e its advantag es a n d draw backs. W hat can be d o n e in a n d th ro u g h it? W hat not? I f we talk a b o u t ‘everyday ae sth e t­

ics’, w hat sh o u ld we pay a tte n tio n to in th e first place?

I will illum inate the general q uestio n with the h elp o f an ex am p le - w hat is »said« o f an aesthetic n a tu re th ro u g h m ake-up, hair-dos, clo th es a n d o th e r th in g s re la te d to a p e r s o n ’s a p p e a ra n c e , a n d w hat k in d o f a e sth e tic s can be m an ifested th ro u g h su ch things? A n d how d oes this d iffer fro m p h ilo so p h i­

cal aesthetics?

I

It is c le a r th a t ae sth e tic c o n c e p tio n s a n d values can b e m a n ife ste d n o t only th ro u g h verbal expressions b u t also th ro u g h deed s a n d actio n. O n e can show w h a t o n e a p p re c ia te s sim ply by w e arin g a c e rta in k in d o f clothes. In p h ilo so p h ic a l a e sth e tic s as a n a c ad em ic d iscip lin e th e typical m a n n e r o f d e a lin g w ith ae sth e tic issues a n d ex p ressin g o n e ’s ideas is to w rite a n d talk a b o u t th em . O n e explicates in w ords how o n e c o n n e cts o n e ’s th o u g h ts with th e e a rlie r p h ilo so p h ic al discourse. B u t this is in d e e d n o t th e way o n e m a n i­

fests o n e ’s aesth etics in everyday s u rro u n d in g s. T h e re , n o n -v erb al o r tacit cases o f aesth etics a re d o m in a n t.

B u t if everyday aesth etics is to a large e x te n t tacit, w h at d o es it m e a n a n d w h a t d o es it reveal o f th e n a tu re o f su ch aesth etics? I f ideas a re n o t e x p la in e d in w ords b u t show n th ro u g h clo th es o r bodily m o v em en ts a n d d ee d s, w h a t do es this in dicate? A nd can s o m e th in g like this b e p h ilo s o p h i­

cal? W hat, in d e e d , can b e d o n e th ro u g h this so rt o f aesthetics?

I sta rt with som e obvious draw backs o f su ch aesthetics, a n d m ove o n to its advantages in a m o m e n t.

First, th e draw backs - a lth o u g h we ca n discuss w h e th e r o r n o t th ey actually a re draw backs a fte r all.

1. Firstly, th e m essages o n e sends th ro u g h , say, clo th es a re o fte n fairly im p recise. Take a lo o k a t th e ac co m p an y in g p ic tu re , fo r ex a m p le. It is easy to see th a t this a ttire has so m e th in g to d o w ith r a th e r u n c o n v e n tio n a l ideas a b o u t d re ssin g u p . B ut th e re a re issues th a t a re m u c h m o re u n c e rta in : w hat does this p erso n actually app reciate, for exam ple? This p articu lar color? Cut?

M aterial? D esigner? H ow do es she w ant to be u n d e rsto o d ? D oes sh e like th e dress, o r is she b e in g fo rc e d to w ear it? Is h e r g e tu p an ae sth e tic s ta te m e n t a t all, o r is it p e rh a p s a sexual o r political one? Tacit m essages in everyday life a re h in ts o r clu es r a th e r th a n c le a r signs. T h u s, th ey c a n n o t b e very p h ilo so p h ic a l in th e s ta n d a rd m e a n in g o f th e w ord, b ecau se p h ilo so p h y , I th in k , sh o u ld b e as c le a r a n d p recise as possible. (W hat k in d o f clarity a n d p re cisio n p h ilo so p h y actually n ee d s a n d w hat k in d o f clarity is p ossible is a n o th e r, very to u g h q u e stio n , o f course.)

2. T h e se c o n d p o in t is close to th e first o n e o r d efin e s it, nam ely, such m a n ife sta tio n s o f aesth etics c a n n o t b e analyzed to reveal th e ir n a tu re , th e ir re la tio n to o th e r sorts o f a e sth etic so lu tio n s o r to th e ir b a c k g ro u n d . T h ey c a n n o t tell why they a re w hat they are o r why they a re n o t so m e th in g else, a n d th ey c a n n o t p re s e n t alternatives. T h ey sim ply are w hat th ey are. T h e c o n tra st to well fo rm u la te d p h ilo so p h ic al cases o f aesth etics is striking.

3. Thirdly, tacit cases o f aesthetics are u n a b le to n e g a te m o st things.

T h ey c a n n o t reveal w h a t is not valuable, w hat is not a p p re c ia te d a n d so on.

T acit everyday ae sth e tic s is d o m in a n tly affirm ative. I t accep ts a n d e m p h a ­ sizes th e things it shows b u t it does n o t actually say an y th in g a b o u t th e things it does n o t show. A business suit does n o t d eny th e value o fje a n s since it does n o t take any sta n d o n th em . T h e p o in t o f d e p a rtu re o f everyday ae sth e tic s is n o t to q u e stio n th in g s a n d re flect ideas th ro u g h th at, in c o n tra st to th e p o in t o f view o f philosophy.

4. T h e fo u rth p o in t is th e last o n e, a n d it is p e rh a p s th e m o st in te re s t­

in g o n e. Namely, it is obvious th a t o n e c a n n o t re a c h m any p h ilo so p h ically in te re stin g q u estio n s a n d areas a t all if o n e sticks to clo th es a n d o th e r su ch m ean s o f p re s e n tin g o n e ’s ae sth e tic ideas. H ow co u ld o n e say a n y th in g o n

o n to lo g y o r how c o u ld o n e d efin e an y th in g th ro u g h that? S uch q u estio n s, how ever, a re a t th e very co re o f acad em ic p h ilo so p h ic a l aesthetics.

It m u st b e stressed, however, th a t this last w eakness is very stro n g ly c re­

a te d by th e everyday context. M any artw orks are qu ite as m u te as n o rm al attire b u t th ey can activate th ese p ro b lem s b ecause th a t is w hat we ex p e c t to h a p ­ p e n in th e a rt w orld. Pieces o f canvas th a t lo o k practically th e sam e as pieces o f clo th ca n b e seen as som e sorts o f d e fin itio n o f a rt o r as o n to lo g ic al co m ­ m en ts. C o n sid e r c e rta in w orks o f M alevitch a n d th e ir re la tio n to figurative a r t - they are p h ilo so p h ic al, even if n o t q u ite in th e sam e way as ac ad em ic studies. O r w hat is even m o re a p p ro p ria te h e re , th in k a b o u t Eva a n d A dele!

T h ey c re a te th e ir a r t th ro u g h th e ir p erso n al a p p e a ra n c e , clothes, m ake-u p a n d behavior. All in all, tacitness itself is n o t an ab so lu te ob stacle fo r so m e­

th in g to b e p h ilo so p h ic al, b u t in everyday s u rro u n d in g s o r co n tex ts n o n - p h ilo so p h ic aln ess seem s to b e th e case.

T h u s, m any re stric tio n s are largely d u e to th e way we a p p ro a c h th in g s in everyday life. T h e th in g s »in them selves«, so to speak, a re n o t as im p o ­ te n t as it m ig h t seem a t th e o u tset, b u t th e everyday m o d e o f d e a lin g w ith th e m leads us to th in k so. B ut this, o f course, is only fu n c tio n a l: o u r every­

day lives m u st re st largely o n sim ple a n d u n q u e s tio n e d c o n c e p tio n s a b o u t th e w orld if we w ant to be able to d o any th in g . If we p o n d e r e d ev ery th in g p ro fo u n d ly , we w ould so o n starve to d ea th .

So m u ch fo r th e disadvantages o f th e aesth etics o f everyday life.

O n th e o th e r h a n d , th e re are clear advantages in p re s e n tin g o n e ’s aes­

th e tic ideas a n d values in th e tacit everyday way - advantages c o m p a re d to m o re p h ilo so p h ic a l a n d especially to tra d itio n a l ac ad em ic form s o f a e s th e t­

ics.

1. Firstly, in o n e sense, visual o r »displayed« m an ife sta tio n s o f o n e ’s id eas a re m o re p re cise th a n v erbal o r o th e r c o n c e p tu a l a p p ro a c h e s - even if they lack o th e r sorts o f precisio n . O n e can lo o k like o n e ’s aesthetics, so to speak, a n d it is im p o rta n t to n o tic e th a t su ch visual p re se n ta tio n s a re ab le to convey in fo rm a tio n o n a n u a n c e d level. I can say »She is w earin g a black dress«, b u t th a t is n o t a t all as ex a ct as th e in fo rm a tio n o n e gets fro m look­

in g at h e r dress - th e n you see exactly w h at k in d o f black th e black is. T h is k in d o f in fo rm a tio n is only atta in a b le th ro u g h th e senses, n o t th ro u g h ver­

bal, c o n c e p tu a l d e sc rip tio n s, w ith w hich p h ilo s o p h e rs o fte n a re c o n te n t.

M oreover, if o n e thinks o f w hat d e ta ile d co m p ariso n s, as re g ard s colors, fo r e x a m p le , o n e can m ake d o w ith o n e ’s eyes a n d how p o o rly e q u ip p e d we conceptually are in this re g a rd , th e d iffe re n c e b ec o m e s ev id ent. T h e re a re always m any p e rc e p tu a lly d iffe re n t colors th a t are d e sc rib e d a n d re m e m ­ b e r e d th ro u g h o n e c o n c e p t only. (N ote th a t even if we talk ed a b o u t n o n ­

verbal, visual co n c ep ts, they are also ro u g h in stru m e n ts w h e n c o m p a re d to w h at we really see.)

2. Secondly, »w earable aesthetics« is very effective a n d ra p id a t convey­

in g in fo rm a tio n . O n e can see surprisingly m any th ing s p ractically in a frac­

tio n o f a sec o n d . I can see a t least so m e th in g essential o f s o m e o n e e lse ’s ae sth e tic ideas a n d show my own ideas to o th e rs w ith o u t p ro b le m s w ith in a b rie f m o m e n t w hen we m e e t in the street. C o m p are this to th e tim e you have to sp e n d in re a d in g an article o r a b o o k a b o u t s o m e o n e ’s ae sth e tic ideas - n o t to m e n tio n th e tim e th a t is necessarily s p e n t o n w riting such works.

3. Lastly, everyday aesthetics is very swift to c h a n g e a n d re a c t to its sur­

ro u n d in g s. If o n e wishes to p re s e n t a n o th e r s o rt o f ae sth e tic id ea, o n e only n ee d s to c h a n g e o n e ’s attire, a n d th a t can b e d o n e w ithin m in u te s. A n d if o n e wishes to re a c t to an y th in g in o n e ’s s u rro u n d in g s quickly, this is also easily d o n e . C o m p a re this, o n c e ag a in , to rig id a c a d e m ic /p h ilo s o p h ic a l form s o f aesth etics. T h e re , if o n e wishes to deal w ith ae sth e tic issues in a typical way, i.e. th ro u g h w riting, it is n o t easy to do it very quickly, sim ply fo r p ra ctical reaso ns. A p ro fo u n d analysis o f any aesth etic q u e stio n m ay take years if n o t d ec ad es to p ro d u c e . T h e re is h ard ly p o in t in talking a b o u t »re­

actions« h e re a t all.

I I

I have p re s e n te d som e o f th e draw backs a n d advantages o f everyday aesthetics. O f course I have sim plified m atters. W hat o n e sh o u ld th in k a b o u t th ese aspects d e p e n d s on w hat o n e wishes to say a b o u t ae sth e tic q u estio n s a n d to ac co m p lish by c e rta in ae sth e tic practices. If o n e ’s goal is to fo rm a p h ilo so p h ically p e n e tra tin g analysis a b o u t an ything , o n e c a n n o t d o it ju s t th ro u g h w earing clothes. T h en , m uteness is a disadvantage; o n e need s words.

O n th e o th e r h a n d , th e aesthetics o f everyday life is m u ch sim p ler th a n criti­

cal analyses, a n d th e place o f p h ilo so p h ic al aesthetics is n o t in everyday life.

T h e re , o th e r form s o f aesthetics a re m o re vital a n d p ractical, a n d sp e e d a n d sim p le, even su p e rfic ia l effectiveness c o u n t m o re th a n d e e p analyses o r c o n c e p tu a l p re cisio n . A nd, o f course, tacitness is n o t a flaw in any serio u s way.

B ut d iffe re n t k inds o f aesthetics n e e d n o t b e co m pletely d isc o n n e c te d fro m ea ch o th er. P h ilo so p h ica l aesthetics can analyze th e cru cial aspects o f everyday aesthetics. It can - a n d sh o u ld - analyze w hat tacitness, im p re c i­

sion a n d affirm atio n m ean , w hat sp e e d o r som e so rt o f volatility m ean s, a n d so o n . A t th e sam e tim e, by studying p ra ctices th a t are n o t p h ilo so p h ic al,

p h ilo so p h y w ould, th ro u g h n e g a tio n , d e e p e n its p ic tu re o f its ow n c h a ra c ­ teristics a n d capacities as well. M oreover, c o n sid e rin g how a rt-d o m in a te d a field p h ilo so p h ic a l aesth etics has b e e n u p till lately, o n e sh o u ld try to fin d o u t w h ich co n c ep ts a n d q u estio n s o f th a t k in d o f aesth etics are re le v a n t in th e c o n te x t o f everyday aesthetics in th e first place. Is it, fo r ex a m p le , im ­ p o r ta n t to p o n d e r w h at orig inality o r creativity is, as it has b e e n in th e a r t w orld? I w ould suggest th a t it is n o t crucial sim ply b ecau se su ch p h e n o m ­ e n a are n o t very im p o rta n t in everyday life con tex t. R ather, o ften th e ir c o u n ­ te rp a rts seem to be.

A system atic m a p o r even a co m p re h en siv e list o f issues th a t a re c e n ­ tral a n d w orthy o f a tte n tio n in everyday aesthetics c a n n o t be p re s e n te d h e re - I have trie d to say so m e th in g o f th a t elsew here - b u t it is clea r th a t these issues a re n o t q u ite th e sam e as those th a t have b e e n pivotal in a rt p h ilo so ­ ph y o r in any o th e r field o f philosophy. T h e p h ilo so p h ic al analysis o f every­

day aesth etics m u st b e o f its own kind.

In any case, th e m o st im p o rta n t th in g to my m in d is th a t it seem s th a t p h ilo so p h ic al analyses o f everyday life cou ld b e a g o o d way to m ak e p h ilo so ­ p h y m o re in te re stin g a n d u n d e rs ta n d a b le to m o re p eo p le. It w ou ld m ove p h ilo so p h y closer to th e ir daily lives. O n th e o th e r h a n d , s tre tc h in g p h ilo so ­ p h y b e y o n d its tra d itio n a l b o u n d a rie s c re a te s new k in d s o f p ro b le m fo r p h ilo so p h e rs to p o n d e r. A nd this, I believe, is th e only way to k ee p p h ilo so ­ p h y alive in th e lo n g ru n .