BeingforBeauty AestheticAgencyandValue
DominicMcIverLopes
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©DominicMcIverLopes2018
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2018
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018939289
ISBN978–0–19–882721–4
Printedandboundby
CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
ForKristenLopes
InmemoryofMariaAlexandraClementinaD’SouzaLopes
Preface
BeingforBeauty :thewordsmapthreepathsintothisbook’stopic,aesthetic value.Puttingthestresson “beauty” contrastsaestheticvaluewithothergoods socialjustice,insightfulscholarship,friendship,ortheTorontoMapleLeafs.We ask,howdoesaestheticvaluedifferfromtheseothergoods,andhowdoesitfare incompetitionwiththem?Puttingthestressonthe “for” highlightstheattitudes wetaketoaestheticvalue.Whatisittobefororagainstaestheticvalue?Isitto likeit,orpromoteit,orassenttoitsgoodness?Bothpathsareworthmapping:a theoryofaestheticvalueshouldsaywhatmakesitunique,andalsohowweorient ourselvestowardsit.Thisbookpresentsatheoryofaestheticvaluebyputtingthe stresson being forbeauty.Beingforbeautyisaconfigurationofhumanagency orientedonaestheticvalues.
Mysecretplan,orhope,fortwentyyearshasbeentobuildupfromadetailed examinationofoneartformtowardsageneraltheoryofaestheticvalue. UnderstandingPictures (1996)treatsimagesasblendinglanguage-likeandperceptual elements,inamergerofthetwomostimportantinformation-processingsystems ofthebrain,yieldingtheamazingdiversityofdepictivestylesthatthrivein differentpragmaticandculturalcontexts.Asequel, SightandSensibility:EvaluatingPictures (2005),locatesthevaluesofimagesintheirextendingthepowersof perception,includingthepowertoexpressemotions.However,akeymoveofthe bookdistinguishedthevaluesimageshaveasimagesfromtheiraestheticvalue, andIwasdisappointedthatthedistinctionfailedtoimpress,despiteitstouching onheateddebatesaboutethicism(esp.Carroll1996;Jacobson1997;Devereaux 1998;Kieran2001;Devereaux2004;Stecker2005;Gaut2007).
Resolvedtoonedayrevisitthefailure,Imeanwhileturnedtocomputerart, whichIsawasanopportunitytoinvestigatehowmaterialsandtechnologies generateartisticandaestheticpossibilities. APhilosophyofComputerArt (2009) alsoassembledthecomponentsofacomprehensivephilosophyofanartform thatis,atheoryofthenatureoftheartform,anontologyofworksintheartform, aframeworkforcriticismandappreciation,plusadefenceofitsstatusasanart.It wouldhavebeenmadnesstoattemptthiswithanyofthewell-establishedarts, butgettingabigpictureofanartformprovedcrucialtounderstandingthearts andaestheticdomainsingeneral.
Generalizingfromthespecialcasesofdepictionandcomputerart, BeyondArt (2014a)setsoutaframeworkforbuildingtheoriesofanyofthearts.The
frameworkpairsthematerialsandtechnologiesofeachartformwithasetof practice-constitutivenorms,theculturalsideofthestory.Inproofofconcept, FourArtsofPhotography (2016b)usestheframeworkfrom BeyondArt torigout anewtheoryofphotographicartpractices,andtotiethattheoryintothehistory ofphotography.
In SightandSensibility,Ihadunderestimatedhowhardithasbecomefor philosopherstoseepastanassumedequationofartisticandaestheticvalue.The frameworksetoutin BeyondArt putsthespecificitiesoftheartsatthecentreof theory-building,anditimpliesthatanitem’ sartisticvalueisjustitsvalueasa workofpainting,music,dance,oroneoftheotherarts(cf.Huddleston2012; Stecker2012;Hanson2013).Sincethereisnomoregeneralartisticvalue,it seemslikeagoodideatoretainaconceptionofaestheticvaluealongsidethe valuesofthespecificarts.Onlyaestheticvalueresidesinallthearts,andin muchelsebesides.
A “PleaforAesthetics” opened SightandSensibility andthe “diversityconstraint” of UnderstandingPictures alreadyalliesaestheticstothephilosophyof culture,sothisbookaboutaestheticagencyandvaluehasbeenalongtime coming.Fromthebeginning,Ihavebeencommittedtomethodsthatcoordinate theexplanatorypowerofgeneralizationwithcloseattentiontolivedreality for details,see AestheticsontheEdge:WherePhilosophyMeetstheHumanSciences (Lopes2018).Hencethebottom-uptrajectoryofthebooksdescribedabove.The challengehasalwaysbeentoknowwheretolookforlivedaestheticreality.
Whileimaginationkitsusouttotraveltounfamiliarterritory,nothingbeats first-handexperience,andthebreakthroughinsightcamefromatimeofimmersioninJapaneseaestheticculture.Forseveralmonths,meetingweeklyina seminarwithyoungartistsandscholars,interactingwithfriendsandneighbours, justgreedilywatchingandlistening,Iwasblownawaybythetextureofaesthetic activityinJapan,bythe finedetailsofwhatpeopledoinordertogiveexpression totheiraestheticcommitments.Inthatcontext,itdawnedonmethatphilosophy hasstruggledtocometotermswithaestheticvaluebecauseithasrelieduponan attenuatedportraitofaestheticagencyasconsistinginthemakingofjudgements. Theremedyistoforegroundrichandrobustexpressionsofaestheticagencythat involvemorethanjudging.Ofcourseaestheticagencybelongstonosingle people weareallaestheticagents butwhatishardforustoseeinourselves isveryoftenobviouswhenweobserveothersactiveinadifferentculture.
SomeastonishingconfessionsmarkkeymomentsofDerekParfit’ s OnWhat Matters (2011). Parfitthoughtthathislifewouldnothavebeenworthlivingwere themainideasofhisbooktoturnoutfalse.Philosophyletsusdownwhenit hardensusagainstsuchpersonalappealsasParfit’s.Wemustrespecthowdeeply
importantphilosophycanbeinthelifeofaphilosopher.Idonotsaythatthe mainideasofthisbookmustbetrue.Weareonlybeginningtothinkabout aestheticvalue,andwhatweneedaboveallistolayavariedandenticingmenuof optionsandargumentsonthetable.Allthesame,IdoadmitthatIcannotimagine mycareerhavingamountedtomuchwithoutmyhavingattemptedtotakeafresh approachtobeauty,rootingforitsimportanceasatopicofphilosophy.
Apostscriptforfellowstylegeeks,giventhebook’sthemethataestheticagency mustbeunderstoodasthrivinginlocalsocialniches.Iroutinelycomposein BritishandU.S.English,thoughIamasmuchCanadianasanythingelse,so IhaveputthisvolumeinCanadianEnglish.Itrustthat’sskookum.
Vancouver January2018
Acknowledgements
Contrarytophilosophy’sperniciousself-image,thereisnosoloachievement. Weeachstandupontheshouldersofmanyothers,relyingupontheirinsights, skillandjudgement,adviceandgenerosity.Manyhandsdeservecreditfor anythinginthisbookthathasturnedoutwell.
Tobeginwith,alltheauthorsIhavecited.Ihavetriedtoreadandcite everythingpertinent,initiallyoutofaconcernaboutbiasesthatskewadmissions tothephilosophycitationclub.Asitturnedout,Ilearnedfarmorethan IexpectedfromwhatIendedupreading,makingtheextraworkworthwhile. Myfellowphilosophers,pleasetrythis.Citelikescientists.
ThewritingsofPhilippaFootandJudithJarvisThomsonmostdeeplyinfluencedme.Theyinsistedthatthecentralcasesforthestudyofvalueshouldbe ground-levelcases beingagoodumbrellaorbeingagoodtiger.Philosophyhas notpaidnearlyenoughattentiontorelativelytrivialaestheticvaluesandthe mundaneactsthatengagethosevalues.Inallowingourselvestobedazzledby grandvalues,wehaveendedupwithastuntedunderstandingofaestheticvalue acrosstheboard.
Manyotherphilosophershaveinspiredthethinkinginthisbookinmore subtleyetcrucialrespects.Afootnotetothewholebook,ratherthanasentence, wouldsaluteSallyHaslangerandBrianEpsteinonsocialpractices,Jerrold Levinsononaestheticnormativity,JosephRazonpracticesofvalue,ErnieSosa onachievement,andSusanWolfonvalueandmeaning.Amongphilosophers writingonbeauty,MaryMothersillholdsaspecialplace.AlthoughIcompletely disagreewithherattheleveloftheory,shegetsrightsomanyofthedetails,and Iquotefromhermorethananyoneelse.Myowntheoryofaestheticvalue developsatraditionthatbeginswithFrankSibleyandismodifiedKendall Waltoninhisclassic, “CategoriesofArt” (1970).IverymuchdoubtIwould havefoundawaytocarrythistraditionforwardwereitnotfortheintellectual companionshipofJamesShelley.Hewillnotagreewithall,ormuch,ofwhat Ihavecomeupwith,butmyperceptionofwherehemightagreeandwherehe mightdemurhasspurredmythinking.
Ialsodependonattentiveaudiencesandwisecolleaguestopushbackwith friendlyskepticism.HeartythanksgotoMuratAydede,AlanGoldman,Keren Gorodeisky,JamesGrant,RobHopkins,RobbieKubala,BenceNanay,NickRiggle, JamesShelley,RobertStecker,andthePress’srefereesfortheircommentson
(partsof)the firstdraft.Alsotomembersofmy2017graduateseminar,especially AlekseyBalotskiy,JackBeaulieu,BiancaCrewe,JeremyDawson,IanHeckman, MattKinakin,PhyllisPearson,SophiaSideris,RodrigoValencia,ServaasVander Berg,andJuhanYoon.ThankstoAbuKamatforresearchassistance.Andthanks toaudiencesattheUniversityofLouisville,theUniversityofVienna,Paris–SorbonneUniversity,the2016annualmeetingoftheCanadianPhilosophical Association,theInternationalCongressofAestheticsinSeoul,theUniversityof TorontoconferenceonArt,History,andPerception,theSaltLakeCityconference onAestheticNormativity,the2017meetingoftheNordicSocietyofAesthetics, andHunterCollege,NewYork.
SusanHerrington’sgenerousreadthroughthepenultimatedraftgavemethe gumptiontostoptinkeringandgetthetexttopress.
Finally,letmerecordhowkeenlyIfeelthelossofPeterGoldieandPeterKivy, twofriendswhosereactionstothisbookwouldhavemeantagreatdealtome.
Philosophersneedtimeashistoriansneedarchives,archaeologistsneedpotteryshards,andphysicistsneedparticleaccelerators.Iamdeeplygratefultothe institutionsthatmateriallysupportedthewritingofthisbook:theJohnSolomon GuggenheimFoundation,theSocialSciencesandHumanitiesResearchCouncil ofCanada,theKillamFoundationthroughtheCanadaCouncilfortheArts,and theUniversityofBritishColumbia.
Themainideaofthisbookwas floatedin “AestheticExperts,GuidestoValue,” givenasapresidentialaddresstotheAmericanSocietyforAestheticsand publishedinthe JournalofAestheticsandArtCriticism (Lopes2015).Passages ofChapters5and6reworkbitsof “Beauty,theSocialNetwork,” publishedinthe CanadianJournalofPhilosophy (Lopes2017a),andsomepassagesofChapter9 echothetextof “DisputingTaste,” whichwaswrittenforJamesO.Young’ s SemanticsofAestheticJudgement (Lopes2017b).
AnticipatingChapter1,athanksinclosingtoallthoseresponsibleformaking abookoutofamanuscript thecopyeditor,designers,typesetters,printersand binders,slingersofxml,distributors,marketers,andPeterMomtchiloff,my intrepideditor,whoisalsoamusician.
Norcustomstaleherin
finitevariety. WilliamShakespeare
Introduction
Whatgoesintodozensofdecisionswetakeprettymuchdaily?Whathas firedthe ambitionsofmanyofourmostgiftedconspecificsforthousandsofyears?What consumesaheftyshareoftheworld’swealth,galvanizingtheeffortsofnational governmentsandlocalcommunities?What fillsthetemplesweerectinwitnessto themarvellousdiversityofourcustomsandtraditions?SteveJobswascalledthe CEOofwhat?
Beauty,ofcourse.
The firstsignsofthemodernmindarepiecesofjewelrydatingbackahundred thousandyears,andtheremainsof finearchitectureonagrandscalepepper theglobe.Moreartisnowmadethaneverbefore,usingnewtechnologiesto yieldnewforms.Afewtapsorclicksopenaccesstobillionsofsongs,pictures, stories,andperformances.Designisubiquitous,addingvaluetomassmanufactures.Civiceventsaredressedinaesthetictrappings.Naturalbeautylies withineasyreach.Oursisaneraofunrivalledaestheticopportunities, filling mosteveryniche.
Yetthesefactstellonlyhalfthestorybehind BeingforBeauty.Putting “beauty” and(samething) “aestheticvalue” inthetitleofanacademicbook,withnohintof ironyorcensure,willraiseeyebrows.Aestheticvaluehashadtoendureindifferenceorsuspicionfromthescholarsandthinkerstowhomwehaveentrustedthe taskofhelpingustomakesenseofourselvesandwhatwecareabout.Sobadisthe situationthatchampionsofaestheticvaluestandoutasexceptions.Avastabyss hascometoseparateourbestunderstandingofaestheticvaluefromtheplainfact ofitsplaceinourlives.Thetimehascometoclosethegap.
ThePrimitiveQuestion
Frustratedwithinterminabledrawing-roomjawingaboutmattersoftaste,Henry James’sCountessGeminideclares, “Idon’tcareanythingaboutreasons,but IknowwhatIlike.” AndwhenDaveHickeyremindsusthat “beautyisand alwayshasbeenblueskiesandopenhighways,” hemeansthatweshouldstop
thinkingandkeepondriving(2009:119).GeorgeSantayanaopened TheSenseof Beauty byconfessingthatnothingissounfittingasdisquisitionsonthetopic (1896:6).However,thelessonisnotthatscholarsmustgetoutofthewayofthe restofus weordinaryfolkwhoareinnocentandunreflectivereceptorsof aestheticvalue.Worriesaboutaestheticvaluearenotonlyacademic.
Modestaestheticendeavoursthatmakeupthefabricofeverydaylifeneedno patrons,whereasbigticketitems masterpiecesofthe finearts haveneeded bankrollingandprotection,initiallyfrompalaceandchurchand,morerecently, fromthestate.Allocatingstateresourcestotheartssparkssometimesheated debateonpublicpatronage,itsrationaleandlimits.Whyshouldtaxpayersfund theBunkaCho,theCanadaCouncil,orConaculta?Mustpublicartsspendingbe justifiedontheBilboaModel,asboostingtouristrevenues?Whysingleoutthe highbrow fineartsforsubsidies?Onlynuancedanswerstothesequestionsguide usindecidinghowmuchsupportiswarranted,ifany.Evendownrighthostility topublicartsspendinginvitesthinkingaboutaestheticvalue.
Similarworriesrecurinthedomesticsphere.Accesstoaestheticvalueoften requireslearning.Muchaestheticeducationcomesthroughinformalchannels: knowledgeandskillsareabsorbedfromexposuretothewideworldandbuiltup throughplayandbymimickingpeers.Atthesametime,someaestheticeducationisformal,requiringlessonstaughtbyexperts,andschoolingiscostly.Should itbeapriority?Why?Andhowmuch?Forseveraldecades,parentshavebeen assuredthatformalartseducationbenefitslearninginthecorecurriculum. Manyparentsfoundthiscomforting,eveniftheyalreadywishedtheirchildren tobeinvolvedintheartsforotherreasons.Alas,acomprehensivesuiteofmetastudieseditedbyLoisHetlandandEllenWinner(2000) findsnoevidenceofthe promisedbenefits.Artseducationdoesnotboostperformanceinmath,language, science,history,orgeography.Yet,asWinnercautionswithMonicaCooper, thefailureto findevidenceofacausalrelationshipbetweenartsstudyandacademic achievementshouldneverbeusedasajustificationforcuttingartsprograms.Thearts deserveajustificationontheirowngrounds,andadvocatesshouldrefrainfrommaking utilitarianargumentsinfavorofthearts.(WinnerandCooper2000:36)
Thenon-utilitarianjustificationtheartsdeserveisonewehaveyettoarticulate. Onapersonallevel,almosteveryonemakesaestheticcommitmentsthat imposepersonalcosts.Thecostsareofteneasytooverlookbecauseweare initiatedintoaestheticlifeatanearlyage,withoutmuchawarenessofwhatis happening,andwegraduallygrowmoreinvolved,takingforgrantedthepricewe payasjustanotherpartofthecostofliving.Onlyrarelyarewecompelledto decidewhetherornottosacrificesomemoretangiblegoodsforwhatsuddenly
appeartoberatherelusiveandhard-to-quantifyaestheticgoods.PaulGauginleft hisfamilytofendforthemselveswhilehetookoffforTahititomakeart.Eachof uswillrecallhow,atimportantmomentsinourownlives,aestheticconsiderationshavepulleduncomfortablyagainstotherconsiderations indeciding oncareerorromanticpartner,forinstance.Whenthechoiceismorethana littleuncomfortable,wewonderhowaestheticconsiderationscometohaveany weightatall.
Manyinquiriesgettheir firstpushfromwhatMaryMothersillcalled “primitivequestions” (1984:71–2).Primitivequestionsprecedetheorizing,they gripthosewhoknownothingoftheory,andtheyareoftenthequestionsthat leadintophilosophy.Whenonedoeslaunchaphilosophicalproject,wekeep theprojectontrackbykeepinginmindtheprimitivequestionwithwhichit originated.
ForMothersill,theprimitivequestionofaestheticsis,whydoesthisitemmove me?Undoubtedlythequestionisagoodone,itarisesinadvanceoftheory,andit isanswerabletotheory.Butanotherquestionistrulytheprimitivequestionof aesthetics.
Socratesasked,howshouldwelive?Hedidnotmeantoaskwhatthemorallaw permitsusanddemandsofus(Williams1985:5).Rather,heburnedtoknow whatingredientsgointoalifelivedwell.If,inhisownlife,Socratesseemed indifferenttobeauty,hecertainlytalkeditupagooddeal,andPlatopresentsthe greatman’sindifferenceasacharmingoddity perhapsawhiffofsomething otherworldly.Nowadays,onlythosegrippedbysomedourideologyorsour humourwishtobanishbeautyfromtheirlives.(Fewsucceed.Itiseasiertolive freeofplasticbags.)
Sinceprimitivequestionscomeinadvanceofphilosophy,weshouldnottryto givethemsuchdefinitiveandrigorousstatementaswouldentailtheirhaving gonethroughsomephilosophy.Theyserveusbestwhentheyaresuggestive,so thatwealwayswonderwhetherourtheoreticalachievementsaretruetoour primitiveinstincts.
Theprimitivequestionofaestheticsissomethinglikethis:whatistheplaceof aestheticvalueinthegoodlife?Or,whatdoaestheticgoodsbringtomylife,to makeitalifethatgoeswell?Or,howdoesbeautydeservetheplacewehave evidentlymadeforitinourlives?
Knowingwhatitisinanitemthatmovesmeleavesitopenwhymylifegoes betterwhenitincludesthesethingsthatmoveme.Mothersill’squestionisnot Socrates’ question,andSocrates’ questionistheprimitivequestionofaesthetics. PartVreturnsinearnesttotheprimitivequestion,equippedtoaddressitwith thephilosophythatisworkedoutinPartsItoIV.
Primitivequestionsneednotbethemostimportantquestions,norarethey onesweareobligedtoanswer,orevenask.Wemustfeelthetugofthem.Thetug ismost firmduringepisodesofself-reflection.Listen,forexample,toMonroe Beardsleyinhis1968PresidentialAddresstotheAmericanSocietyforAesthetics: discoursingonaesthetictheory...oughttobedonewithquietnessandpatience.Buta quietvoiceisalltooeasilydrownedoutbythecriesofanguishandofangerwehear aroundus,andpatienceisavirtuethatonlythosewholiveinalessterrifiedsocietycan affordtocultivate.Evenhardenedaestheticians(anobviousoxymoron)maysufferfrom doubtsthatbeautyorsignificantformiswhattheworldneedsmostrightnow,whenquite differentgoods intelligenceandcharity,forinstance aremorelikelytorestoreour senseofcommunityandstopusfromcreatingasocietywhoseanswertoallproblems aestheticandotherwise willbeviolentrepression.Whensomanyofusinthistroubled landdonotseemtocareverymuchevenforoneanother muchlessfortheravaged natureandcrumblingcitiesourdescendantswillinherit theaestheticpointofview becomesdifficulttosustain.Itmayevenseemabsurd.(1969:3)
Eventsintheyearssince1968makeBeardsley’splightallthemorevivid.We cannotshutoureyestotherealityofsomuchsuffering.Howdarewewaste preciousenergyinthinkingaboutaestheticvalue?How,inansweringthis question,canweguardagainst findingaestheticvalueinonlythegrandest culturalmonuments,monumentsthatmightliveuptoIsaiah’sofferof “beauty forashes” (61:3)?
BeautyinArt
Oncemovedtoreflectonaestheticvalue,wenaturallyturntoartsscholarsfor insight,though,untilrecently,theyhaveviewedbeautywithsuspicion,even scorn.AsArthurDantoputitin TheAbuseofBeauty, “beautyrarelycameupin artperiodicalsfromthe1960sonwithoutadeconstructionistsnicker” (2003:25). Theartsscholars’ snickersechoedthepronouncementsofavant-gardeartists,for whomdenigratingaestheticvaluewasatickettobeingtakenseriously.For example,JohnCageadmonishedJuilliardstudentsin1952that “thehighest responsibilityoftheartististohidebeauty” (2010[1952]:98).Pushback finally camein1999,whentheHirshhornMuseumputonashow, ‘RegardingBeauty’ , tocelebratethepersistenceofaestheticvalueinhigh-octanevisualartofthelate twentiethcentury.Ensuingyearssawasmatteringofprovocativemonographsin defenceofbeauty(e.g.Scarry2001;Steiner2001;Prettejohn2005;Nehamas 2007;Hickey2009;Gardner2011;Konstan2014).
Dantoneatlysumsupthechargesagainstaestheticvalue(seealsoPrettejohn 2005).First,aestheticvaluetradesinappearances.Beautificationisaesthetic
sophistry, “makingtheworseappearbetter,” aswe findin “cosmetics,fashion, interiordecoration,andthelike,wherewearenotdealingwithnaturalbut enhancedbeauty” (2003:83).Second,aestheticvaluehastodowithpleasure, especiallysensualpleasure.Forsome,thatisalreadycauseforgraveconcern. Third,andperhapsinconsequenceofthe firsttwocountsoftheindictment, aestheticvalueiseasy.Thesensuousthrillcomes,asDantoexplains, “without benefitofargumentoranalysis” (2003:93).Bycontrast,artmakesusworkhard toextractwhatithastooffer(Danto2003:89).
Afraudisaconwhenitsvictimisunawarethatthecrimeeveroccurred,and theallureofaestheticvalueprovidesperfectcoverforacon.Manyartsscholars signedupfortheanti-fraudsquad,whosemissionwastounmaskhidden agendas,revealingtous,inthewordsofthecriticA.O.Scott,that “whatwe havetakenforbeautyisreallytheafterimageofcruelty,inequality,intolerance, sexism,andgreed” (2016:99).
Likemostthings,beautyisdangerousinthewronghands,andofcourseit fallstoartsscholarstounmasknefariou sagendas,butisittruethataesthetic valueisnon-contingentlyshallow,sensuous,andeasy?ConsiderTitian ’ s FlayingofMarsyas. Wemustworkhardtoovercomeourimmediatereaction and fi ndourwaytoitsdeeperbeauty.Thepaintingscarcelybringssensuous pleasure.Itissickeningtolookat,utterlygut-wrenching.Nordoesitindulge aestheticsophistry,prettyingupthecruelty.Titianyieldsnotonedropof easysolace.
Acknowledgingthepoint,Dantodistinguishesaestheticvalueoutsideartfrom aestheticvaluethatcontributestoanitem’svalueasaworkofart(2003:92–7). Whereastheformerisshallow,sensuous,andeasy,thelatterdemands “critical intelligence,” imbuesthoughtwithfeeling,andescapesbeing “shallowandfalse totherealityoftheworld” (2003:97).ForDanto,artredeemsbeauty.
Again:isittruethat,exceptinart,aestheticvalueisnon-contingentlyshallow, sensuous,andeasy?Doesaestheticvaluefoundoutsideartneverdemandhard work,neverrewardonanintellectualplane,prettifynothing?Euler ’ sidentity (e iπ +1=0)isbeautifulbuthardasallheck,super-intellectual,andinnoway misleading(Gallagher2014;InglisandAberdein2014).Sowhythinkthatart ownsamonopolyontheokaykindofbeauty?Perhapsouraestheticvalue conceptshaveacquiredassociationsthatbiasourchoiceofparadigmcases towardsbeautification,whileourconceptsofartisticvaluehavemorehygienic associations?
Philosophersarefondofremarkingthat “aesthetic” wascoinedasabitof technicalvocabularyintheeighteenthcentury,thoughtheyrarelygetthesignificanceofthefactoid.If “aesthetic” wasintroducedbystipulationfortheoretical
purposes,thenthepointofusingthewordistoreduceconfusionandthechance ofrunninginferencesafoulofequivocation.
“Beauty” and “aestheticvalue” canreferbroadlytoaestheticgoodnessor narrowlytoonespeciesofaestheticgoodness.Inthenarrowsense,thebeauty ofsomeofEricClapton’srenditionsofbluesnumberscoststhemsomeoftheir aestheticgusto.Inthebroadsense, Guernica isbeautifulbecauseitisshocking thatis,itisaestheticallygoodbecauseshocking.WhenJosephAddison(1712) foundpassagesofMiltonthatare “beautifulbybeingSublime,” hewasnot thinkingofbeautyasacomplementofthesublime;hewasthinkingofthe sublimeasavarietyofaestheticvalue.
Letahabitofthoughtbeatendencytofallintopatternsofreasoningunderthe influenceofanideathatmightberepudiatedwhenmadeexplicit.Twohabitsof thoughtlureusintobadfaithaboutaestheticvalue.The firstistooverlook aestheticvalueinitsbroadsense.Beautificationhappens,butonlysometimes, anditisinevitableonlyifthereisnobeautyinthebroadsense.Inthebroad sense,aestheticvalueneednotbeshallow,sensuous,oreasy.Compoundingthe firsthabitofthoughtisanother,atendencytolooktotheartsasthesiteswhere aestheticvaluecomesintoitsown(Shiner2001;Mothersill2004;Forsey2013; Wolterstorff2015;Rose2017).StevenConnorputsitalittlemorestronglywhen hereportsthattheaestheticiscommonlyacceptedas “havingtodowiththe qualitiesthatarespecifictoart” (2011:55).
Sadly,thetwohabitsofthoughthavehobbledrecentdefencesofbeautyin reactiontotheanti-aestheticclimate.Initsanti-aestheticmode,artsucceeds whenithidesshallow,easy,sensuousbeauty.Championsofbeautyreplythat beautyisintegraltoitsartisticvaluewhenitisharnessed,throughthepowerof art,togetusthinkinghard.AsDantoconcluded,artredeemsaestheticvalue becauseitalonecanprovidedifficultbeautyahome.
Atonetime,beautyinartcouldbetreatedasacontinuationofbeautyoutside art.After1999,extra-artisticbeautyremainsbeyondredemption shallow,easy, andsensuous.Criticsandchampionsofaestheticvalueshareincommonthe samebadhabitsofthought.
Decisivelybreakingthehabitmeanspayingattentiontoaestheticvaluein thebroadsense,whereveritmaybefound,notonlyinart.Weask,howdoes aestheticvaluedeservetheplacewehavemadeforitinourlives?Inaskingthis, wekeepinmindthatsomehumanbeingshavelittleroomforartintheirlives, andmosthaveconsiderablymoreaestheticvalueintheirlivesthantheygetfrom art.Inoverlookingwhatwe findinaperennialborder,achampionKomondor, thetaperedlegofatable,ortheeconomyofamathematicalproof,wecannotdo justicetotheprimitivequestion.
AestheticValueinAesthetics
RobertNozickoncenamedaestheticsthebranchofphilosophythat “speaks mostfrequentlyandarticulatelyofvalue” (1981:415).Hewasplumbwrong. Surveyingthestateofthe fieldinhispresidentialaddresstotheAmericanSociety forAesthetics,KendallWaltonreportedthat “itwouldbeaseriousdistortion, now,tocharacterizeaestheticsasaspeciesofvaluetheory” (2007:148).Onlytwo recentbooksonaestheticvaluehavemadethecanon(Mothersill1984;Goldman 1995).Inarecent, five-yearperiod,95percentofthepagesofthe field’ s flagship journalsconcernedart,while3percentwenttonature(Irvin2008b:29).The aestheticsvolumeintheNewWavesbookseries,whichspotlightsworkbyrising starsineachbranchofphilosophy,containsnochapteronaestheticvalue(Stock andThomson-Jones2008).Onemightinferbyinductionthatthetopicis hopeless.Happily,theinferenceisdefeatedbyanexplanationofwhathasbeen happeninginthe field.
Tobeginwith,arthastakenatopspotontheagenda.Althoughmanyartsare ancientandfoundineveryhumanculture,theyonlycametobegroupedtogether as fineartsinearlymodernEurope(Kristeller1951–2;Shiner2001;Lopes2014a: ch.2;Pollock2016:1–3).ThusChambers’ s Cyclopaedia of1727diagramshuman activitiesinrelationtooneanotherasbranchesofatree,andtheartsarescattered acrossthetree.Paintinggoeswithoptics,musicwithappliedmathematics, gardeningwithagriculture,andpoetrywithrhetoricandgrammar...andheraldry. Afewdecadeslater,Diderotandd’Alembertdrewaverydifferenttreefortheir Encyclopédie, clusteringthe fineartstogetherasasinglebranch(Kristeller1951–2: 520).Withthenewgroupingcamethethoughtthattheartssharesomecommon featurethatbespeakstheirspecialimportanceanddistinguishesthemfromthe sciencesandtheappliedartsandcrafts.
Kant(2000[1790])wasarguablythelastinalineofphilosopherswhocameto aestheticvaluedirectly,notbywayofart.Hegel(1975[1832])viewedaesthetic valueasbelongingtothe finearts,justifyingtheirloftystatus.AccordingtoJeanMarieSchaeffer(2000),amajorprojectofthenineteenthcenturywastoendow theartswithapowertorevealaspecialkindofknowledge,puttingthemona footingwithphilosophyandthesciences.InCharlesTaylor’shistory,theworkof artwasviewedasinspiringanawethatplacedit “ontheborderofthenuminous,” whereitheld “thehighestmoralorspiritualsignificance ” andpromisedusa chanceto “recoverwholeness,oratleastescapedegradationandfragmentation” (1989:376,419,439).
Twentieth-centuryanglophonephilosophytoneddowntheexaltationbut retainedthefocusonart(e.g.Bell1914).AsR.G.Collingwoodputit, “aesthetic
theoryisthetheorynotofbeautybutofart” (1938:41).Thetrendcarriesinto postwaranalyticaesthetics,notablyintheworkofBeardsley(1981[1958];1969; 1970b;1979),Goodman(1976),andRichardWollheim(1980).UltimatelyDanto (1964;1981)andGeorgeDickie(1974;1984)tookthe finalstep,theorizingart withoutanyappealtoanotionofaestheticvalue.
Inthemeantime,philosophersnotpayingduestotheaestheticsguildwere writinginsightfullyonaestheticvaluewithouthavingartprimarilyinmind, though,curiously,theirworkisunknowninaesthetics.Shiningexamplesare G.E.Moorein PrincipiaEthica (1903)andC.I.Lewisin AnAnalysisofKnowledge andValuation (1946).Bothdomorethangesturetowardsaestheticvalue;they giveitcentrestage,withoutfussingoverart.Bycontrast,inprofessionalaesthetics, arthashoggedthelimelight.
Aestheticshasoftenmadeprogressbyincorporatinginsightsfromthehistory ofphilosophyandadaptingtoolsfromotherareasofphilosophy.Wollheim’ s Art andItsObjects, firstpublishedin1968,tiedproblemsinaestheticstoideasin analyticmetaphysics.Thatsameyear,Goodman’ s LanguagesofArt approached aestheticsasappliedphilosophyoflanguage,therebyopeningthedoortostudies ofourresponsestoartworksasimplicatingcognitiveinformationprocessing (Lopes2000).PerhapsitisnocoincidencethattheyearwhenBeardsleyexpressed hisdespairaboutthewisdomofspendingtimeonaestheticswasalsotheyear whenthe fieldsteppedclosertotherestofphilosophy.Since1968,richworkhas beendoneonliterary fiction,metaphor,artemotion,pictorialrepresentation, anddozensofothertopics(seeLevinson2003orGautandLopes2013).Theboom inproductivityhasbeenelectrifying.Tosomeextent,valuegotleftbehindin theexcitement(Daviesforthcoming).
Admittedly,somequestionstangentialtoaestheticvaluehavebeenonthe agenda.Forexample,areaestheticevaluationsobjectiveorsubjective(e.g. Goldman1993;Schellekens2006)?Aretheyeverjustifiedbymeansofinferences(e.g.Hopkins2006a;Dorsch2013;Cavedon-Taylor2017)?Whatarewe tomakeofaestheticdisagreement(e.g.Kivy2015;Young2017)?Howdo aestheticpropertiesrelatetonon-aestheticproperties(e.g.Levinson2005; Benovsky2012)?Youmightconcurwithananonymousrefereewhowrote thatthesearethequestionsthatmatter,whilequestionsaboutaestheticvalue perseare “irrelevant.” ThethreechaptersmakingupPartIVdemonstratehow tomakeprogressonthetangentialquestionswithhelpfromanewaccountof aestheticvalue.
Moreimportantly,though,noanswerstothetangentialquestionscomeclose toansweringtheprimitivequestionofaesthetics.Supposethataestheticpropertiessuperveneonourresponsesandthataestheticevaluationsaresubjectiveand
neverjustifiedbyinferences,sothattherearenogenuineaestheticdisagreements. Orsupposethecontraryoneachpoint.Eitherway,whatdoesthistellusabout whyaestheticvaluedeservestheplacewehavemadeforitinourlives?
ThePartyLine
Addressingtheprimitivequestionofaestheticsrequiresatheoryofaesthetic value.Untilweknowwhataestheticvalueis,wecanhardlycometotermswithits roleinalifelivedwell.Thesituationisthatphilosophershaveneglectedaesthetic value,thoughtheyhaveatheoryofaestheticvalue.Theinconsistencyisonly apparent,fortherearetwowaystoneglectatopic.Oneistosaynothingonthe topic.Anotheristowhiptoapartyline,takingananswertobeobvious,never engagingingenuinediscussion.(Ofcourse,thatispreciselywhattendstohappen whenattentionlieselsewhere,onartor fictionortheontologyofmusicalworks.)
Philosophersneglectaestheticvaluebecause,whenitdoescomeupfordiscussion,itisso firmlywhippedtoapartylinethatlittletroubleistakentodo morethanstatewhatistakentobeobvious.Statedwithmaximalbreadth,the partylineisthataestheticvaluesarepropertiesofworldlyitemsthathavetodo with finallyvaluableexperiencesonthepartofthosewhoappreciatetheitems. Sincea finallyvaluableexperienceisapleasure,thepartylineamountstoa hedonictheoryofaestheticvalue.Accordingto
AESTHETICHEDONISM:anaestheticvalueisapropertyofanitemthatstandsin constitutiverelationto finallyvaluableexperiencesofsubjectswhocorrectly understandtheitem.
Soformulated,aesthetichedonismisatemplateforanyofanumberofvariants. ItsmainelementsareunpackedinPartII.(Theaboveformulationofaesthetic hedonismisincluded,alongwiththebook’sothermainclaims,intheListof Theses,whichfollowsChapter12.)
Bibliographicnote.AesthetichedonistsincludeLewis1946;Beardsley1969; Beardsley1970b;Slote1971;Dickie1974:40–1;Beardsley1979;Beardsley1982; Mothersill1984;Dickie1988;Eaton1989;Goldman1990;Levinson1992;Walton 1993;Budd1995:4–8;Stecker1997:254–7;Miller1998;Levinson2002;Iseminger 2004:ch.3;Goldman2006;Stecker2006;Budd2008;Egan2010;Levinson2011; Strandberg2011;Moran2012;Pratt2012;Stang2012;Matthen2015;Schaeffer 2015:115–25;Kölbel2016;Levinson2016;DammannandSchellekens2017;and Matthen2017.Anoppositionexists:Knight1967;Zangwill1999;Sharpe2000; Carroll2002:154–63;Davies2006;Shelley2010;Wolf2011;Lopes2015.
