Professor Johnson cleverly posed a Q&A that begins our foray into aesthetics while not prematurely retreating from the Took-kit, and my questions this week will attempt to do the same.
1. You all surely noticed that "aesthetics" despite being a branch of philosophy is not on the cover of the tool-kit, although in the entry "Axiology" the authors inform us that aesthetics does indeed fall into that branch of the philosophical triad. Aesthetic theories, however, often hinge on definitions of key terms, and are often dependent on chiefly epistemological hypotheses. Also, art objects are, by necessity, metaphysical units. Why then, as opposed to ontology and epistemology, is aesthetics relegated to the realm of axiology. Posit possible explanations and then agree or disagree with those explanations.
2. Johnson's question asks you to consider the intellectual virtues, and operating under the opinion that these are vital characteristics, I will do the same. It strikes me (and I very well may be mistaken) that while they are all important to philosophy, some may be more relevant and more useful in the particular practice of aesthetics. Which will serve us the best and which are less important? Or, alternatively, disagree with my base supposition (i.e. that some are more important than others) and demonstrate why.
I posed two questions; while you are only obliged to respond to one, I encourage careful consideration and even response to both.
I will be responding to this on my blog as well as here:
ReplyDeleteResponse to Jacob Wheeler's post at 8:45pm on 9/11/11
Aesthetics, as I would argue, belongs specifically under the branch of axiology. All of the branches of philosophy, as we have learned, are very interdisciplinary and build upon the others. Therefore, assuming that aesthetics possibly lies under just a single branch of philosophy is preposterous. Putting the interdisciplinary connections aside, I would argue that aesthetics is primarily axiological. Axiological claims are what I like to call "claims of morality" or ethics. Ethical claims involve distinguishing right and wrong, or in this case "in" and "out", and to fortify any such claim, you need support; proof is the crux or any axiological claim or research paper alike. Proof, in itself, comes in many forms, most of which are epistemological or ontological. For instance, if you were to say "Murder is wrong" (axiological in nature because it is declaring the moral value of a situation), you would need to support that claim with proof, such as "murder causes other humans to die" (an epistemological or ontological claim depending on how you view the source of the statement and its application). Delving further, I believe that aesthetics is a subjective area of philosophy, regardless of late philosophers’' views. Beauty and its appreciation are subjective things because they are perceived personally on an individual basis. If you've ever taken a trip to Mass MoCA, you'd most likely find art many others consider beautiful that you could scoff at. However, considering beauty and appreciation, an individual must assess each piece of art to determine its value to them. Judgment is an axiological action because it separates and values some things from others. Although aesthetic claims must be backed up using proof from other philosophical areas, aesthetics is, in its bare form, a game of judgment to me. This is why I declare that aesthetics is a branch off of axiology.
I pose a particularly difficult question that has come up in class since it is strongly related to the above argument; what is your personal limit to beauty? Where does the line between an admirable, aesthetic work and a homely canvas covered in paint fall? Is this a clean-cut line, or are there debatable works that fall into the middle ground? (for these answers, try to keep the art reference to visual works)
I responded to your questions on my blog.
ReplyDeleteI have, or rather will have responded, on my blog, to your second question. Though I will likely respond to the first question as well.
ReplyDelete