Aesthetics

1.To try to explain how and why aesthetics is understood, as a philosophical endeavor should first start with what I think and feel through my learning experiences what is art. Art for me is what is pure about the art form and what makes it beautiful. Beauty in art is what enhances individual senses to makes us feel all our senses are united as one. When these traits come together you are in presence of a work of art in my mind and the definition of aesthetics in art.

I feel that the reason aesthetics is understood as a philosophical endeavor is because we as a society need to put a label on or problems to help develop a strategy that will help conquer these problems. So to start a branch in philosophy directed towards the arts, or anything that is meant to capture beauty or criticism should be arranged in a system of criticism. Criticism, which in particular judgments are singled out and their logic and justification displayed, is why it is and will continue to be an endeavor. I feel an artist role in society
is to portray a objective and subjective view about his work before and after his work is completed to give a fair
assessment to the public of how he sees the world.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

2. If you look up the definition of aesthetics it will probably say to some extent, the particular idea of what is beautiful or artistic. The problem with this is the word beautiful can mean different things to two different people. So an individual determines the value of the word. This is why there is so much variation in our assessments of the value of works of art. Subjective and objective theories of aesthetic are a way of separating different approaches. An objective theory claims that aesthetic value is in the property of the artwork itself. The fact that we do reach agreement on the value of so many works suggests that somehow there is an objective basis for our judgments. The subjective theory claims that aesthetic value is simply a matter of the psychological effect on or the attitude of the observer, and these vary considerably from observer to observer. If aesthetic value is subjective, why do we so often try to persuade friends of the value of a work of art that we believe they have overlooked.
3. Plats rationalism is the conviction that the truth and the real world are disclosed through the use of the mind alone. In Platos opinion of art he say that art is here to increase the world of untrue experiences by creating images of images and illusions of illusions. He continues to say that if the world of direct sense experience is untrue and unreal in some sense, the world created by art is even more so and that by increasing human deception about reality and by appealing to emotions and feelings, therefore, art in whatever form should have no part in an ideal human community. Now if Plato is so concerned with reality and the metaphysics of the world why doesnt he appreciate art that is produced unconsciously in our minds through direct sense experience and is created into a physical art form? Are we as artist not trying to take the unreal and trying to make real? Are we not trying to create the world around us through the dreams and illusions we cant not deny we have, but to try to give reason and cause for them? Is this what philosophers have been doing since the beginning of written language in trying to give reason for things? If Plato understood that no on perceives an apple in the same way. Why doesnt he perceive that an art form has reason in other peoples mind that he might not be able to relate to? My point is simple and that is Plato is one man with an opinion in a world of many men with opinions. What makes his opinion have meaning to himself is his ability to manipulate language to convey a reason for his opinion? I value his opinion to the highest degree but do not agree with it. Art is art because in my mind I say it is.


Bibliography:

Aesthetics

Aesthetics Kant defined aesthetic as both, “the analysis of taste and the analysis of sensible cognition or intuition” (1). Aesthesis, means “sensation”, the Greeks made a distinction between aesthesis autophues (natural sensation) and aesthesis epistemonike (acquired sensation) (1). We may say that aesthetics is both the study of aesthetic objects and of the specific and subjective reactions of observers, readers, or audiences to the work of art. Aesthetics is necessarily interdisciplinary and may be interpretive, prescriptive, descriptive, or a combination of these. The big, obvious question about aesthetic value is whether it is ever ‘really in’ the objects it is attributed to. This issue parallels the realism/anti-realism debates elsewhere in philosophy (2).

Though there is little reason to assume that aesthetic value will behave in just the say way as for example, moral value. An extreme realist would say that aesthetic values reside in an object as properties independent of any observer’s responses, (3) and that if we make the judgment ‘That is a beautiful flower’, or ‘this painting is aesthetically good’, what we say is true or false – true if the flower or painting has the property, false if it does not. We will tend to like the object if we recognize the aesthetic value in it, but, for the realist, whether we recognize it and whether it is are two separate questions. Consequently, much work in aesthetics has gone into trying to specify the nature of aesthetic experience or aesthetic response. One factor is pleasure, satisfaction, or liking.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The second is experience: the response we are looking for must be a way of attending to the object itself (4). In the case of music, it must be a response to perceived patterns of sound, in the case of cinematography, a response to the experience of seeing something on the screen. If you merely describe a piece of music or a sequence of images to me, I am not yet in a position to respond in the kind of way which is peculiarly relevant to aesthetic value. The third factor in aesthetic response is thought to be ‘disinterestedness’. The idea is that the pleasurable experience of attending to something in perception should not consist in liking a thing only because it fulfills some definite function, satisfies a desire, or lives up to a prior standard or principle (4).

There are subjective responses which we are justified in demanding from others: these are not idiosyncratic likes and dislikes, but deeply rooted in our common nature as experiencing subjects, and founded on a pleasurable response to the form of the object as it is presented in perception. This means, among other things, “aesthetic value cannot be enshrined in learnable principles” (5). There are no genuine aesthetic principles, because to find aesthetic value we must, “get a look at the object with our own eyes” (5). Aesthetic judgments are founded upon the slender basis of one’s own feeling of pleasure, but can justifiably claim the universal agreement if the subjective response in question is one that which any properly equipped observer would have. Sometimes it is assumed that the prime interest in art is aesthetic, but that assumption bears some examination.

Unless “aesthetic stretches to cover everything conceivable that is of value in art, art may have values which are not aesthetic. For example, it might have therapeutic value, or give us moral insights, or help us understand points in history or points of view radically unlike our own. We might admire a work for its moral integrity, or despise it for its depravity or political untruthfulness. Are all these a matter of aesthetic value? If not, then aestheticism gives too narrow a view of the value of art. Without succumbing to the view that art’s point is always as a means to some end outside itself (6), we should concede that works of art have a great variety of values.

Artworks are, nevertheless, usually intentionally produced things. They are also things with characteristic modes of reception or consumption (7). Paintings are placed where we can se them in a certain way, music is enjoyed or analyzed mostly by being heard. This pattern of production and reception gives rise to two recurring questions in the philosophy of art: What relation does the work bear to the mind that produced it? And what relation does it bear to the mind that perceives and appreciates it (8). As an example, we may take emotion and music.

We say that music has or expresses some emotional character. Since emotions are mental states, we may think that the emotion gets into the sounds by first being present in the mind of the composer or performer. Or we may think that the listener’s emotional reactions are somehow projected back on to the sounds. Neither of these approaches has great plausibility, however, so that a new question emerges: The music all by itself somehow seems to point to, or stand for emotions – how? Aesthetics has yet to come to terms with this issue. There is a similar pattern in the case of artistic representation.

In the question of what a picture depicts, what role is played by the artist’s intentions, and what by the interpretations which an observer may conjure up? Or does the painting itself have a meaning by standing in symbolic relations to items in the world? If the latter, how similar, and how dissimilar are depiction and linguistic representation? (8). Once one starts to address problems at this level, the philosophy of art starts to concern the nature of philosophy as a whole. Arts Essays.

x

Hi!
I'm Adrienne!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out