Sacha Golob (sacha.golob@kcl.ac.

uk)
Aesthetics, KCL
----I----
Introduction to Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art
(1) What is aesthetics? A narrow definition.
Heres one possible answer !aesthetics is the stu"# o$ artistic beaut#. %his answer
has a nu&ber o$ i&portant i&plications.
('A) (t lea"s to a $ocus on a speci$ic t#pe o$ art. Contrast cases o$ )il"e (!the artist is
the creator o$ beauti$ul things), or )arhol (!Art is what #ou can get awa# with), or
*acon (!( woul" like &# pictures to look as i$ a hu&an being ha" passe" between
the&, like a snail lea+ing its trail o$ the hu&an presence).
('*) Historicall#, it has $ostere" an e&phasis on the links between artistic an" natural
beaut#. %his ob+iousl# suits both a si&ple theis&, an" &ore sophisticate" thinkers
like Kant who are grappling with the a$ter&ath o$ the scienti$ic re+olution
(2) What is aesthetics? A broader definition.
Heres an alternati+e "e$inition !aesthetics is the philosoph# o$ art. %hus, e.g.,
,ew&an !aesthetics is $or artists what ornitholog# is $or bir"s - a t#pe o$ higher
or"er anal#sis o$ the pheno&ena. So&e a"+antages o$ this "e$inition
(.A) %he $irst "e$inition is /ust too narrow. 0ont want to close o$$ "iscussion o$ post1
0a"a art like 0ucha&p2 si&ilarl# o$ten praise3attack art works $or &an# $eatures
besi"es beaut#.
(.*) *# broa"ening the "e$inition, we get to the real philosophical 4uestions
un"erl#ing the !beaut# "ebate. Consi"er case o$ argu&ent about !claustrophobic or
!repulsi+e or !te"ious work. 5ossible to see aesthetics as pla#ing si&ilar role to
&eta1ethics2 an" beaut# is then /ust one part o$ the general set o$ pheno&ena we want
to un"erstan".
So will use broa"er "e$inition. 6ine to sa# art shoul" be un"erstoo" in ter&s o$ beaut#
- but this shoul" be a &atter o$ argu&ent, not stipulation. 7ne conse4uence, though,
is the issue o$ natures beaut#3ugliness etc is going to be largel# set asi"e, although it
will $eature when "iscussing Kant in particular (the 4uestion o$ which "e$inition
shoul" be prioritise" is ob+iousl# an i&portant one - see, e.g, Ga"a&er, Truth and
Method, 5t.', Chs'1.).
(3) Why should we care about aesthetics? Why should philosophy hae anythin!
interestin! to say about it?
%wo issues here it see&s ob+ious that art is an interesting an" signi$icant
pheno&enon (cases o$ in"i+i"ual $a+ourite &usic3books3picture, o$ !art as new
religion in )est, o$ Shakespeare an" hu&an achie+e&ents). 8ore proble&atic wh#
shoul" philosoph# ha+e an#thing worthwhile to sa# about art9 :ecall ,ew&an 4uote 1
bir"s t#picall# "ont care about ornithologists. %here is a genuine proble& here as
#oull see $ro& so&e literature. *ut there are also reasons to think that philosoph#
"oes ha+e so&ething to o$$er in un"erstan"ing art - an", as well see, this belie$
"ri+en &uch &ost in$luential phil an" art criticis& since Greece.
'
Sacha Golob (sacha.golob@kcl.ac.uk)
Aesthetics, KCL
Here - +er# arti$iciall# "i+i"e", since the# are all inter1linke"- are so&e e;a&ples o$
kin" o$ proble& phil &ight a"+ance.
(<A) 0e$inition. 0e$ine" !aesthetics in ter&s o$ !art but what is that9 7b+ious
proble& is post10a"a conceptual art. Consi"er )arhol brillo bo; an" one still in the
$actor#. (s so&ething art because )arhol sa#s so9 Can an#one "o this9 (s the whole
"e$inition 4uestion worth asking - coul" it plausibl# ha+e an answer9 6or the
&o&ent, well operate with an e;tensional "e$inition onl# - art is !that stu$$.
(<*) ,or&ati+it#. Suppose ( sa# the %itian is ugl# or Ha&let is te"ious or etc. an" #ou
"isagree. (s one o$ us wrong9 )hat kin" o$ argu&ent are we ha+ing - is it like the
co$$ee case, the ethics case, the geograph# case or none o$ the abo+e. 7b+iousl#
closel# linke" to 4uestion o$ whether artistic e+aluations can be true or $alse (although
be care$ul - it is possible that truth &a# be su$$icient but not necessar# $or
nor&ati+it# again co&pare &eta1ethics).
(<C) 8oralit#9 %ruth9 How "oes art relate to other nor&s9 :eturn to )il"e (!%here is
no such thing as a &oral or an immoral book=*ooks are well written or ba"l#
written. %hat is all). *ut is this right9 6a&ous e;a&ples - :ie$enstahl, 0A6"eS etc.
)hat about truth9 %ake the case o$ a no+els account o$ a relationship an" how the
work &ight be criticise". *ut then the phonebook presu&abl# has no artistic &erit.
(<0) Creation an" the artistic process. (s, $or e;a&ple, painting3sculpting skill
necessar#9 (s it su$$icient9 )hat "o we think about $orgeries9 %he case o$ +an
8eegeren - Lady Reading Music or The Supper at Emmaus. Are these pictures o$ less
artistic &erit than people thought9 ($ ( ha+e a per$ect cop# o$, sa#, +an Goghs
Sunflowers in what sense a& ( worse o$$9
(<>) Criticis& an" (nterpretation. )hat are we "oing when we criticise or interpret a
work o$ art9 (s there a right interpretation9 0o the authors intentions &atter9 0o the#
tru&p other interpretations9
(<6) 8aterialit#. )hat is the connection between the sensuous, the ph#sical an" what
one &ight call the !i"ea o$ the work9
(<G) Societ#. (s !being a work o$ art a social propert# in the wa# that, sa#, being
charis&atic is9 Go back to the two brillo bo;es - i$ it is social relations that &ake the
"i$$erence there, what about pri+ate art9 8ore broa"l#, in what sense can art e;press
or alter or trans$or& a societ#s sel$1i&age9 %ake case o$ 0i;. As well see the social
nature o$ art $un"a&ental to Hegel especiall#. *ut i$ art "oes ha+e this broa"er social
role, shoul" the state seek to control or "irect it9
(") #he structure of this $odule.
(?A) 5re rea"ing week. 6our hugel# in$luential earl# &o"ern an" &o"ern historical
takes on these issues we will see both how these authors shape" the conte&porar#
agen"a an" #et also ra"icall# "i+erge $ro& it.
(?*) 5ost :ea"ing )eek. 6i+e central "ebates within conte&porar# aesthetics. )ell
look both at the proble&s highlighte" abo+e an" at se+eral others what is kitsch, what
&akes so&ething a picture o$ so&ething else, can pornograph# be art.
.