AESTHETICS
Lecture 1, Friday 13/09/2019
Intro: What is Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art (and what is not)?
The Odd One Out?
The aesthetics course is the ‘odd one out’ because most courses think in the so-called ‘social
sciences’ approach in studying the art. Meaning, that most focuses more on the social context in
analyzing the arts, more so than analyzing the art objects themselves.
Humanities approach is different. It focuses on cultural analyses. It specializes in analyzing artistic
cultural object, the content. Aesthetics belong to this department of humanities. It’s not so much
about analyzing specific art objects, but more focused on the philosophers that have developed
theories of the nature of art; answering the question ‘what is art?’ in general.
INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS AESTHETICS?
Oxford English Dictionary:
‘The philosophy of the beautiful or of art’; ‘A system of principles for the appreciation of the
beautiful’
The first definition suggests that aestheticians focus on answering the question while developing the
theory of what is art and therefore, what is not; what demarcates the boundary between ‘art’ and
‘non-art’.
The second definition suggests that aestheticians not only focus on answering the question of the
nature of art but also analyze, in a systematic way, what are the conditions for people to make
aesthetic judgments.
Philosophical discipline: what is art (and what is not)?
1. Why and how do people distinguish between the beautiful and the ugly?
2. What is a judgment of taste/aesthetic judgment?
3. What are the conditions that make an aesthetic judgment possible?
The question ‘what is art?’ is as old as philosophy itself.
It was already discussed in the works of Plato and Aristotle, even the people before them. However,
during the 18th century with the emergence of Romanticism as an aesthetics and philosophical
movement centered in Germany, France, and the UK, aesthetics became an independent discipline
within philosophy. This was due to 3 historical factors.
18th century: aesthetics as independent philosophical discipline – three factors:
1. Autonomization (emancipation) of art
With the emergence of the Enlightenment in the 17th – 18th century, the artistic/cultural field
became autonomous from other fields within society. During this period, people depended
more on their ratio and critical thinking, no longer relying on the church or other authorities,
but relying on their own moral and empirical judgments. Due to this, cultural field became
autonomous from external forces, including the Christian church as artists did not have to
abide the rules of the Church anymore.
, Due to this emancipation of art, the artistic field becoming autonomous also means that
artists could now suddenly decide what art is and what it is not—no longer relying on
external forces.
2. Consequently: Crisis of aesthetic norms
Due to this autonomization process, a crisis of aesthetic norms arises, hence the emergence
of all the modern and avant-garde movements. There are relatively autonomous cultural
fields, in which art critics, artists, and audience collectively decide what the nature of the art
is. And every party used aesthetic theories in order to legitimize the meaning of art.
Aesthetics became more dominant and important in philosophy, but also in society at large.
3. Emergence of modern (natural) sciences
Natural sciences systematically analyze phenomena in the empirical world, this systematic
analysis was also used by philosophers to analyze in a scientific way the conditions of the
aesthetic judgments.
The emergence of aesthetics was also a sort of counter-movement against the scientific
revolution. Scientific revolution brought disenchantment of the world as it made the world
more ‘mechanical’ and mathematized the world. Aesthetics, as an independent field within
philosophy, became more dominant as a counter movement against this disenchantment of
the world. Focusing on the importance of feelings, imagination, emotions, rather than only
the importance of ratio and critical thinking.
One of the people who was involved in this counter movement was Alexander Gottlieb
Baumgarten, who was also the mentor of Immanuel Kant. In his works, he made a transition
from a more traditional understanding of the concept of aesthetics towards a more
romantic and modern understanding.
The terms ‘aesthetics’ and ‘philosophy of art’;
→ Aisthesis: “sense perception” / “sensation”
There’s a long tradition in philosophy, particularly in epistemology*, where these philosophers used
the word ‘aesthetics’ in this more traditional definition; analyzing the conditions that made empirical
judgments possible.
*epistemology: what are the sources of knowledge? how do we gain knowledge from empirical reality?
Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten (1714 – 1762):
“Reflections on Poetry” (1735)
Aesthetica (1750 – 1758)
Baumgarten, especially in his work Aesthetica, started to use the word ‘aesthetics’ in a more
modern/romantic way, namely not in the definition of sense perception or sensation, but as a way
to analyze the conditions that made aesthetic judgments possible. Baumgarten argued to judge
objects in terms of pleasure or displeasure.
,→ Study of AESTHETIC JUDGMENT (! – Kant, Week 3)
In short:
1. Until mid-1700s → ‘Aisthesis’: science of sense perception
- ‘Aisthesis’ in a more traditional definition, still prevalent in the work of Baumgarten, also
in Kant’s.
2. Mid-1700s onwards → ‘Aesthetics’: systematic study of taste / aesthetic judgment (in art,
but mostly within nature)
- The use of ‘aesthetics’ in a more modern definition. Baumgarten and also Kant didn’t
really focus on art; when they speak of beauty, it’s more about beauty in nature and
everyday life. This changed towards the late 1700s.
3. Late-1700s → ‘Philosophy of art’: critical reflection on the nature of ART
Philosophers, such as Hegel, started criticizing the notion of aesthetics and started using the
concept of ‘the philosophy of art’. For Hegel, analyzing the beauty of nature wasn’t very
relevant, whereas art was more important. And from Hegel onwards, philosophers started
focusing on developing aesthetics theories in which they developed the nature and the
essence of art, and not so much theories on aesthetics judgments.
For pragmatic reasons: ‘aesthetics’ and ‘philosophy of art’ are used as synonyms.
PHILOSOPHY OF ART vs. SOCIAL SCIENCES:
Distinction: empirical vs. philosophical questions
The distinction lies in the different types of questions that are asked by philosophers and social
scientists. Philosophers pose philosophical questions that cannot be answered by conducting
empirical research, while social scientists pose empirical questions.
So the question of ‘what makes aesthetic judgments possible?’ is a philosophical question.
o Example 1: Philosophy of Art vs. Art History
→ Magritte, La Trahison des Images (1928 – 29)
For example, art historians in analyzing the work of Magritte would analyze the material
aspects; what is it made of? what is the size? how can we place it within a specific historical
context?
On the other hand, philosophers will pose different questions. Magritte himself is posing
these questions in and throughout his works; Is (visual) art capable of copying reality in a
perfect way? What are the boundaries? → Ceci n’est pas une pipe. It’s just a copy of a pipe.
By painting/copying it, we are always creating a distance between the artwork and reality
itself.
o Example 2: Philosophy of Art vs. The Sociology of Culture / Taste
→ Bourdieu’s social critique of the judgment of taste vs. Kant’s critique of judgment
Kant analyzed the a priori conditions of aesthetic judgments, while Pierre Bourdieu analyzed
the aesthetic judgments of others. As soon as Bourdieu started to normatively develop an
aesthetic theory, he made a transition from sociology to philosophy.
, The difference is, again, made formally. Also, aesthetic judgments are always normative
judgments. Kant’s analyses of the conditions of aesthetic judgments are systematic,
scientific studies. But, philosophers like Nietzsche, developed a theory that are very
subjective and normative.
In short:
o Difference is determined formally, not materially
Both philosophers and social scientists analyze similar objects, e.g. artworks, but the
distinction is made more formally by the type of questions posed.
o Aesthetic judgments are always normative statements (cf. ethics)
PHILOSOPHY OF ART vs. ART CRITICISM:
What is the distinction between art criticism and philosophy of art?
With this, it’s a little more difficult to make the distinction because there are quite a few similarities
between art criticism and aesthetic theory.
3 similarities:
1. Both disciplines are normative by nature
o Both critics and aestheticians develop theories about the nature of art.
2. Aestheticians, in the formulation of their theory, are often determined by their own (normative)
taste (which they formulate in the role of “consumer”)
o Also, philosophers made the transition from analyzing art as an everyday question towards
analyzing art as a philosopher, and asking more abstract/broader/more philosophical questions.
3. Aesthetic judgments in art criticism very often rely on aesthetic theory
o Aestheticians relying on their own aesthetic judgments while formulating their aesthetic
theories, while critics in formulating their criticism make use of these theories that are made by
the aestheticians. So there’s a sort of circular reasons going on.
→ Principal distinction: the particular (art criticism) vs. the general (aesthetics)
Art critics write a review on one specific artwork or exhibition, whereas aestheticians develop more
general, universal theories about the essence of art.
The ideal-typical viewpoints in philosophy of art/aesthetics:
They are “ideal-typical” because there has not been one single philosopher who has developed such
a viewpoint of his own. These viewpoints cannot be found specifically in the history of aesthetics.
Lecture 1, Friday 13/09/2019
Intro: What is Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art (and what is not)?
The Odd One Out?
The aesthetics course is the ‘odd one out’ because most courses think in the so-called ‘social
sciences’ approach in studying the art. Meaning, that most focuses more on the social context in
analyzing the arts, more so than analyzing the art objects themselves.
Humanities approach is different. It focuses on cultural analyses. It specializes in analyzing artistic
cultural object, the content. Aesthetics belong to this department of humanities. It’s not so much
about analyzing specific art objects, but more focused on the philosophers that have developed
theories of the nature of art; answering the question ‘what is art?’ in general.
INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS AESTHETICS?
Oxford English Dictionary:
‘The philosophy of the beautiful or of art’; ‘A system of principles for the appreciation of the
beautiful’
The first definition suggests that aestheticians focus on answering the question while developing the
theory of what is art and therefore, what is not; what demarcates the boundary between ‘art’ and
‘non-art’.
The second definition suggests that aestheticians not only focus on answering the question of the
nature of art but also analyze, in a systematic way, what are the conditions for people to make
aesthetic judgments.
Philosophical discipline: what is art (and what is not)?
1. Why and how do people distinguish between the beautiful and the ugly?
2. What is a judgment of taste/aesthetic judgment?
3. What are the conditions that make an aesthetic judgment possible?
The question ‘what is art?’ is as old as philosophy itself.
It was already discussed in the works of Plato and Aristotle, even the people before them. However,
during the 18th century with the emergence of Romanticism as an aesthetics and philosophical
movement centered in Germany, France, and the UK, aesthetics became an independent discipline
within philosophy. This was due to 3 historical factors.
18th century: aesthetics as independent philosophical discipline – three factors:
1. Autonomization (emancipation) of art
With the emergence of the Enlightenment in the 17th – 18th century, the artistic/cultural field
became autonomous from other fields within society. During this period, people depended
more on their ratio and critical thinking, no longer relying on the church or other authorities,
but relying on their own moral and empirical judgments. Due to this, cultural field became
autonomous from external forces, including the Christian church as artists did not have to
abide the rules of the Church anymore.
, Due to this emancipation of art, the artistic field becoming autonomous also means that
artists could now suddenly decide what art is and what it is not—no longer relying on
external forces.
2. Consequently: Crisis of aesthetic norms
Due to this autonomization process, a crisis of aesthetic norms arises, hence the emergence
of all the modern and avant-garde movements. There are relatively autonomous cultural
fields, in which art critics, artists, and audience collectively decide what the nature of the art
is. And every party used aesthetic theories in order to legitimize the meaning of art.
Aesthetics became more dominant and important in philosophy, but also in society at large.
3. Emergence of modern (natural) sciences
Natural sciences systematically analyze phenomena in the empirical world, this systematic
analysis was also used by philosophers to analyze in a scientific way the conditions of the
aesthetic judgments.
The emergence of aesthetics was also a sort of counter-movement against the scientific
revolution. Scientific revolution brought disenchantment of the world as it made the world
more ‘mechanical’ and mathematized the world. Aesthetics, as an independent field within
philosophy, became more dominant as a counter movement against this disenchantment of
the world. Focusing on the importance of feelings, imagination, emotions, rather than only
the importance of ratio and critical thinking.
One of the people who was involved in this counter movement was Alexander Gottlieb
Baumgarten, who was also the mentor of Immanuel Kant. In his works, he made a transition
from a more traditional understanding of the concept of aesthetics towards a more
romantic and modern understanding.
The terms ‘aesthetics’ and ‘philosophy of art’;
→ Aisthesis: “sense perception” / “sensation”
There’s a long tradition in philosophy, particularly in epistemology*, where these philosophers used
the word ‘aesthetics’ in this more traditional definition; analyzing the conditions that made empirical
judgments possible.
*epistemology: what are the sources of knowledge? how do we gain knowledge from empirical reality?
Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten (1714 – 1762):
“Reflections on Poetry” (1735)
Aesthetica (1750 – 1758)
Baumgarten, especially in his work Aesthetica, started to use the word ‘aesthetics’ in a more
modern/romantic way, namely not in the definition of sense perception or sensation, but as a way
to analyze the conditions that made aesthetic judgments possible. Baumgarten argued to judge
objects in terms of pleasure or displeasure.
,→ Study of AESTHETIC JUDGMENT (! – Kant, Week 3)
In short:
1. Until mid-1700s → ‘Aisthesis’: science of sense perception
- ‘Aisthesis’ in a more traditional definition, still prevalent in the work of Baumgarten, also
in Kant’s.
2. Mid-1700s onwards → ‘Aesthetics’: systematic study of taste / aesthetic judgment (in art,
but mostly within nature)
- The use of ‘aesthetics’ in a more modern definition. Baumgarten and also Kant didn’t
really focus on art; when they speak of beauty, it’s more about beauty in nature and
everyday life. This changed towards the late 1700s.
3. Late-1700s → ‘Philosophy of art’: critical reflection on the nature of ART
Philosophers, such as Hegel, started criticizing the notion of aesthetics and started using the
concept of ‘the philosophy of art’. For Hegel, analyzing the beauty of nature wasn’t very
relevant, whereas art was more important. And from Hegel onwards, philosophers started
focusing on developing aesthetics theories in which they developed the nature and the
essence of art, and not so much theories on aesthetics judgments.
For pragmatic reasons: ‘aesthetics’ and ‘philosophy of art’ are used as synonyms.
PHILOSOPHY OF ART vs. SOCIAL SCIENCES:
Distinction: empirical vs. philosophical questions
The distinction lies in the different types of questions that are asked by philosophers and social
scientists. Philosophers pose philosophical questions that cannot be answered by conducting
empirical research, while social scientists pose empirical questions.
So the question of ‘what makes aesthetic judgments possible?’ is a philosophical question.
o Example 1: Philosophy of Art vs. Art History
→ Magritte, La Trahison des Images (1928 – 29)
For example, art historians in analyzing the work of Magritte would analyze the material
aspects; what is it made of? what is the size? how can we place it within a specific historical
context?
On the other hand, philosophers will pose different questions. Magritte himself is posing
these questions in and throughout his works; Is (visual) art capable of copying reality in a
perfect way? What are the boundaries? → Ceci n’est pas une pipe. It’s just a copy of a pipe.
By painting/copying it, we are always creating a distance between the artwork and reality
itself.
o Example 2: Philosophy of Art vs. The Sociology of Culture / Taste
→ Bourdieu’s social critique of the judgment of taste vs. Kant’s critique of judgment
Kant analyzed the a priori conditions of aesthetic judgments, while Pierre Bourdieu analyzed
the aesthetic judgments of others. As soon as Bourdieu started to normatively develop an
aesthetic theory, he made a transition from sociology to philosophy.
, The difference is, again, made formally. Also, aesthetic judgments are always normative
judgments. Kant’s analyses of the conditions of aesthetic judgments are systematic,
scientific studies. But, philosophers like Nietzsche, developed a theory that are very
subjective and normative.
In short:
o Difference is determined formally, not materially
Both philosophers and social scientists analyze similar objects, e.g. artworks, but the
distinction is made more formally by the type of questions posed.
o Aesthetic judgments are always normative statements (cf. ethics)
PHILOSOPHY OF ART vs. ART CRITICISM:
What is the distinction between art criticism and philosophy of art?
With this, it’s a little more difficult to make the distinction because there are quite a few similarities
between art criticism and aesthetic theory.
3 similarities:
1. Both disciplines are normative by nature
o Both critics and aestheticians develop theories about the nature of art.
2. Aestheticians, in the formulation of their theory, are often determined by their own (normative)
taste (which they formulate in the role of “consumer”)
o Also, philosophers made the transition from analyzing art as an everyday question towards
analyzing art as a philosopher, and asking more abstract/broader/more philosophical questions.
3. Aesthetic judgments in art criticism very often rely on aesthetic theory
o Aestheticians relying on their own aesthetic judgments while formulating their aesthetic
theories, while critics in formulating their criticism make use of these theories that are made by
the aestheticians. So there’s a sort of circular reasons going on.
→ Principal distinction: the particular (art criticism) vs. the general (aesthetics)
Art critics write a review on one specific artwork or exhibition, whereas aestheticians develop more
general, universal theories about the essence of art.
The ideal-typical viewpoints in philosophy of art/aesthetics:
They are “ideal-typical” because there has not been one single philosopher who has developed such
a viewpoint of his own. These viewpoints cannot be found specifically in the history of aesthetics.
