The Basics, Part 22: Aesthetics, Part 1

We move on again to the topic of the next series - Aesthetics. In lieu of a reading for this session, I'd instead like you to think about three basic topics:

1. What is the subject-matter of aesthetics?

Is aesthetics about art, taste, or beauty? I think it's fair to say that the first intonation from the term invokes artistic point of view; we might use a famous work of art, such as Michelangelo's Pieta or Raphael's School of Athens as a clear subject for aesthetic appreciation. But more modern artists have challenged this paradigm; Marcel Duchamp, for instance, displayed a urinal at an art show and called it "art." Duchamp challenged us to think about what can be a subject for aesthetic appreciation. If "art" is not really what aesthetics is about, then is it instead about beauty? One might say that a model's symmetrical, pleasing face is worthy of aesthetic appreciation. But it was not created by the hand of an artist. It's also worth considering an idea of "taste" as another aspect of aesthetics, which sometimes goes overlooked. A speech or a toast might be considered tasteful, and thus worthy of aesthetic appreciation. Is the aroma of a well cooked meal a topic of aesthetic discussion? What about that which offends the senses? If this is also a subject matter of aesthetics, then is there anything that is not a subject for aesthetics? Is aesthetics a universal, all encompassing evaluation?

2. What is the "source" of aesthetics? Is there an aesthetic "sense", or is aesthetics something that exists independently of our perception of it?

The word "aesthetics" comes from the Greek αἰσθητικός (aisthetikos) which is usually associated with "sense, feeling, and sense-perception." But Plato in the Hippias Major dialogue considers other aspects of aesthetics that do not rely upon sense-perception: usefulness, appropriateness, and favor. While each of these is rejected in favor of the final definition (which turns out to be that which is pleasurable to the senses), I do not think that they should be completely dismissed.

Philosophers like Kant seated aesthetic sensibility within our consciousness, on the same plane as rationality; it originates from a sense of disinterested judgment. Aesthetics, for Kant, derives not from a Platonic form, like the "Form of the Beautiful" but instead from our common sense, almost like an interplay of our reason and our imagination.

Some contemporary thinkers analyze aesthetics in relation to social or cultural norms. Perhaps a Rolex is considered more beautiful than another watch because owning a Rolex is a status symbol, or maybe it is ugly because it is a symbol of consumerism. What is beautiful to the Westerner might be abhorrent to people in the East. But how is this possible if we all have an aesthetic sense, as Kant argues, that allows us to discern beauty?

3. How important is authenticity to aesthetic taste?

When I use the term "authenticity", I use it in an explicitly existentialist sense, i.e. authenticity is the degree to which one is true to one's own way of thinking, one's personality, or orientation towards the world, despite external pressures. How much of aesthetic sense is driven by the needs of one's own inner being? Can this influence what we consider beautiful? For instance, some people consider the Beatles to be the greatest band of all time; for them, it is the voice of their generation and preserves a sense of a time when all was possible. Now, I don't particularly enjoy the Beatles (crucify me at your leisure), but I also don't have a particular emotional connection to their music, nor is it the music of my generation. It doesn't fill a particular need for me; they don't help me define my place in society or in existence as a whole, as they might do for others.

Kierkegaard envisions the process of authenticity as "One must make an active choice to surrender to something that goes beyond comprehension, a leap of faith into the religious." To the more secular mind, a leap into the "religious" may not be as meaningful as it is to the believer, but it's clear what Kierkegaard is getting at - we have to suspend judgment and surrender to our existence, no matter how strange, fearful, or ugly, for it brings us into a greater communion with the continuum of existence. In this respect, aesthetics is akin to this process. The art or objects that we find beautiful often are so for no rational reason, and the introduction of a completely rational analysis of aesthetics may rob it of some of its power - just like a full comprehension of our place in this world is deadened when it is summed up in some convenient syllogism. How much abandon do we throw ourselves into when we consider the aesthetic?

These questions, while not focused totally on art (that subject will be addressed in future sessions) will be the focus of our next session. Looking forward to it!