DOCSLIB.ORG

Beauty, Art and Testimony: Subjectivity and Objectivity in Aesthetics by Erica Diane Klempner a Dissertation Submitted in Partia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beauty, Art and Testimony: Subjectivity and Objectivity in Aesthetics by Erica Diane Klempner a Dissertation Submitted in Partia Beauty, Art and Testimony: Subjectivity and Objectivity in Aesthetics by Erica Diane Klempner A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Hannah Ginsborg, Co-chair Professor Barry Stroud, Co-chair Professor John MacFarlane Professor Line Mikkelsen Spring 2018 Copyright © 2018 by Erica Diane Klempner All rights reserved Abstract Beauty, Art and Testimony: Subjectivity and Objectivity in Aesthetics by Erica Diane Klempner Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy University of California, Berkeley Professor Hannah Ginsborg and Professor Barry Stroud, Co-chairs We acquire beliefs on the basis of what others tell us all the time. If you tell me that your house is painted red, chances are that I will simply believe you without question; and if someone asks me what color your house is, I will simply tell her that it is red. Yet we do not seem to accept others’ testimony about beauty and art in the same way. If you tell me that the Taj Mahal is beautiful, or that Middlemarch is a great novel, it would be strange for me simply to adopt your view, even if I have a lot of confidence in your judgment. In order for me to be in a position to believe or to claim that the Taj Mahal is beautiful, or that Middlemarch is a great novel, I must experience these things myself—by going to Agra, or by reading the book. My dissertation explains this apparent resistance to aesthetic testimony. I argue that aesthetic claims carry what is known in linguistics as ‘evidential’ information, to the effect that they are made on the basis of the subject’s firsthand experience. I locate aesthetic claims amongst a slew of other kinds of claims—including personal taste claims, perceptual appearance claims and moral claims—that all carry evidential information of this kind. These claims are loosely connected by having content that is essentially subjective or perspectival in some way, even when, as in the aesthetic and moral cases, there is also some claim to objectivity in play. I offer a detailed explanation in the aesthetic case—specifically for claims about beauty—of how their content comprises both subjective and objective elements. I argue that the evidential information carried by aesthetic claims and the other ‘perspectival’ claims I mention is communicated as conversational implicature, in spite of initial appearances to the contrary. Our apparent resistance to aesthetic testimony thus turns out to be an artifact of the evidential implications of aesthetic language: we often do accept aesthetic testimony, but we must describe our beliefs in a way that does not convey misleading evidential information. 1 To my family, to PG Tips, and to Stanley Chen, with whom I began this conversation a long time ago. i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction to the problem 1 2 Previous attempts to solve the problem 4 2.1 Emotivism (and other expressivist views) 4 2.2 Subjectivism 5 2.3 An epistemic problem? 11 2.3.1 Lack of ‘full understanding’ 11 2.3.2 Is aesthetic testimony unreliable? 15 2.4 Other solutions 19 2.4.1 Aaron Meskin’s ‘reverse error theory’ 19 2.4.2 Robert Hopkins and ‘Unusability’ 23 3 Evidentiality 28 3.1 Conveying evidentiality 28 3.2 Must 29 3.3 Must, aesthetic claims and evidentiality 39 4 Multiple dimensions of content 46 4.1 Conversational implicature 46 4.2 Presupposition and conventional implicature 51 4.3 The ‘Direct Evidentials’ and conversational implicature 55 5 Content and calculability: some non-aesthetic examples 57 5.1 Presumption of evidential source 57 5.2 The role of perspective: some examples with ‘looks’ (and one or two other things) 60 5.3 The role of perspective: personal taste 68 6 The content of beauty claims: first pass 71 6.1 The normativity of beauty 72 6.2 An objectivist view for beauty? 77 6.3 Critical standards 79 6.4 A problem with the objectivist view 81 7 The content of beauty claims: a hybrid model 86 7.1 Judgments based on pleasure: tastiness 88 7.2 Judgments based on pleasure: beauty 90 7.3 The structure of beauty claims 94 ii 7.4 Negative judgments of beauty 105 7.5 Disagreement about beauty 107 7.6 Calculability for aesthetic claims 111 7.7 Wrapping up aesthetic content and calculability 116 8 Cancelability 118 8.1 Extremely robust conversational implicatures 119 8.2 Aesthetic and other Direct Evidential implicatures 124 8.3 Aesthetic implicature and aesthetic belief 128 References 130 iii 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM Many people think that there is something wrong with acquiring aesthetic beliefs on the basis of the testimony of others. If a friend tells me that Middlemarch is a great novel, but I have never read it, it would be strange for me simply to adopt my friend’s view, even if I have a lot of confidence in her judgment. In order for me to be in a position to believe that Middlemarch is a great novel, I must read it myself. And, it’s thought, because I am not in a position to believe that Middlemarch is a great novel if I haven’t read it myself, I am also not in a position to claim that Middlemarch is a great novel. The most I will say on the basis of testimony is that I’ve heard Middlemarch is a great novel, or that it’s supposed to be a great novel, or that my friend Margot says it’s a great novel. I will not simply say, “Middlemarch is a great novel.” Kant holds this view for judgments of beauty; he maintains, for instance, “that the approval of others provides no valid proof for the judging of beauty, that others may perhaps see and observe for [someone], and that what many have seen in one way what he believes himself to have seen otherwise, may serve him as a sufficient ground of proof for a theoretical, hence a logical judgment, but that what has pleased others can never serve as the ground of an aesthetic judgment.” (Kant 2000: §33, 5:284.)1 As Kant here notes, the phenomenon at issue does not extend to many other kinds of beliefs. If there is something wrong with acquiring beliefs about beauty, and other aesthetic beliefs, on the basis of testimony, this makes aesthetic beliefs very different from other kinds of beliefs, even other kinds of perceptual beliefs, as we often acquire such beliefs on the basis of testimony. If Margot tells me that her house is red, I may easily believe that her house is red. As Kant also suggests here, I may do so even if I have previously seen her house myself and on that basis thought it was orange (possibly because I saw it under yellow streetlights). Beliefs based on testimony often, in fact, amount to knowledge. I come to know that Margot lives in a red house when she tells me so. Moreover, I can on this basis tell someone else that Margot’s house is red. I would not have to qualify my claim by saying, “Apparently, Margot’s house is red,” or “Margot told me that her house is red.” The comparison with color seems apt because both color beliefs and aesthetic beliefs are acquired, in the first instance, on the basis of a kind of subjective response. For aesthetic beliefs, this is most obvious in the case of judgments of beauty (Kant’s focus), which are based on a particular kind of pleasure felt in the experience of the beautiful thing. However, the connection with subjective response is arguably there with other kinds of aesthetic belief as well—e.g. that a novel is good or a vase graceful—and in any case whatever issue there is concerning aesthetic testimony has generally been taken to apply to any kind of aesthetic belief. The comparison with color raises the question of why the aesthetic domain is different. Note that the issue does not seem to be that, for some reason, unqualified aesthetic beliefs acquired on the basis of testimony never amount to knowledge. The issue, if real, is prior to this: it is that there is something strange about acquiring such beliefs at all. I do think the issue is real, in that there is a genuine strangeness here that needs an explanation. We do not think of ourselves as having unqualified testimony-based aesthetic beliefs, and we do not make sincere, unqualified aesthetic claims on the basis of testimony. This is presumably not just an accident: there is presumably some norm that governs this aspect of our aesthetic practice. If the norm is epistemic—if, that is, testimony is for some reason an insufficient epistemic ground for aesthetic beliefs, barring testimony-based aesthetic beliefs from fulfilling the conditions necessary for 1 Henceforth, Kant’s Critique of Judgment will be referred to as CJ. 1 knowledge—then this norm has been embodied by that practice, to the extent that we do not acquire unqualified aesthetic beliefs on the basis of testimony at all. In this work I will investigate the problem of aesthetic testimony: why, that is, we do not acquire unqualified aesthetic beliefs on the basis of testimony, or make unqualified testimony- based aesthetic claims. The question has to date received many kinds of answer. The phenomenon is important to Kant, as I’ve indicated. There has not been agreement even on what kind of explanation we are looking for: an epistemological explanation, or some other kind.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Role of Cultural Value in the Historical Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu Tony Bennett
    The Historical Universal: The Role of Cultural Value in the Historical Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu Tony Bennett The definitive version of this article is published in: Bennet, T. 2005, ‘The Historical Universal: The Role of Cultural Value in the Historical Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu’, The British Journal of Sociology, 56(1): 141-164. The definitive version of this article is published in: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2005.00051.x/abstract (institutional or subscribed access may be required) The journal British Journal of Sociology is available online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1468-4446 (institutional or subscribed access may be required) Copyright remains with the publisher, Blackwell Publishing. Disclaimer Please note that this is an electronic, pre-print version of this article produced by the Institute for Culture & Society, University of Western Sydney, in accordance with the requirements of the publisher. Whilst this version of the article incorporates refereed changes and has been accepted for publication, differences may exist between this and the final, published version. Citations should only be made from the published version. User Agreement Copyright of these pre-print articles are retained by the author. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article to facilitate their own study or non-commercial research. Wider circulation and distribution of the material and/or use of it in profit-making activities is prohibited. URLs to access this pre-print version can
    [Show full text]
  • Norms of Belief and Norms of Assertion in Aesthetics
    Philosophers’ volume 15, no. 6 1. Introduction Imprint february 2015 1.1 Aesthetics and assertion It is a noteworthy feature of our discourse concerning aesthetic value that certain kinds of assertion — unproblematic in most other domains — are typically ruled as impermissible. I can legitimately assert that post-boxes in Canada are red, Justin Bieber’s sophomore Norms of Belief and album lasts a little over thirty-eight minutes, and arsenic is extremely poisonous, even though I have never seen, heard, or imbibed the relevant items. In contrast, utterances such as ‘The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is an extremely moving film’ (Lackey 2011: 257) and ‘It’s such Norms of Assertion in a wonderful novel; insightful and moving, with the most beautiful and bewitching language’ (Robson 2012: 4), appear extremely problematic in the mouth of someone who has not experienced the works in question for themselves.1 Aesthetics This contrast may initially seem rather prosaic, but it has recently been employed in arguments intended to motivate a number of significant philosophical claims. These arguments typically begin by taking such examples as license for the general claim that it is illegitimate to make assertions concerning the aesthetic properties of an object in the absence of first-hand experience of the object itself. Thus Mary Mothersill claims that ‘the judgment of taste (speech act) presupposes, through the avowal that it implicates, first-person knowledge of the object judged’ (1994: 160). Simon Blackburn states Jon Robson that if ‘I have no experience of X, I cannot without misrepresentation University of Nottingham answer the question ‘Is X beautiful/boring/fascinating…?’’ (1998: 110), and others — such as Jennifer Lackey (2011: 157–8) and Keren Gorodeisky (2010: 53) — make comments in a similar vein.
    [Show full text]
  • Paths from the Philosophy of Art to Everyday Aesthetics
    Paths from the Philosophy of Art to Everyday Aesthetics Edited by Oiva Kuisma, Sanna Lehtinen and Harri Mäcklin Paths from the Philosophy of Art to Everyday Aesthetics © 2019 Authors Cover and graphic design Kimmo Nurminen ISBN 978-952-94-1878-7 PATHS FROM THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART TO EVERYDAY AESTHETICS Eds. Oiva Kuisma, Sanna Lehtinen and Harri Mäcklin Published in Helsinki, Finland by the Finnish Society for Aesthetics, 2019 6 Contents 9 Oiva Kuisma, Sanna Lehtinen and Harri Mäcklin Introduction: From Baumgarten to Contemporary Aesthetics 19 Morten Kyndrup Were We Ever Modern? Art, Aesthetics, and the Everyday: Distinctions and Interdependences 41 Lars-Olof Åhlberg Everyday and Otherworldly Objects: Dantoesque Transfiguration 63 Markus Lammenranta How Art Teaches: A Lesson from Goodman 78 María José Alcaraz León Aesthetic Intimacy 101 Knut Ove Eliassen Quality Issues 112 Martta Heikkilä Work and Play – The Built Environments in Terry Gilliam’s Brazil 132 Kalle Puolakka Does Valery Gergiev Have an Everyday? 148 Francisca Pérez-Carreño The Aesthetic Value of the Unnoticed 167 Mateusz Salwa Everyday Green Aesthetics 180 Ossi Naukkarinen Feeling (With) Machines 201 Richard Shusterman Pleasure, Pain, and the Somaesthetics of Illness: A Question for Everyday Aesthetics 215 Epiloque: Jos de Mul These Boots Are Made for Talkin’. Some Reflections on Finnish Mobile Immobility 224 Index of Names 229 List of Contributors 7 OIVA KUISMA, SANNA LEHTINEN & HARRI MÄCKLIN INTRODUCTION: FROM BAUMGARTEN TO CONTEMPORARY AESTHETICS ontemporary philosopher-aestheticians
    [Show full text]
  • Aesthetic Theory
    Draft Introduction The concept of philosophical aesthetics has an antiquated quality, as does the con- cept of a system or that of morals. This feeling is in no way restricted to artistic praxis and the public indifference to aesthetic theory. Even in academic circles, essays relevant to aesthetics have for decades now noticeably diminished. This point is made in a recent dictionary of philosophy: "There is scarcely another philosophical discipline that rests on such flimsy presuppositions as does aesthet- ics. Like a weather vane it is 'blown about by every philosophical, cultural, and scientific gust; at one moment it is metaphysical and in the next empirical; now normative, then descriptive; now defined by artists, then by connoisseurs; one day art is supposedly the center of aesthetics and natural beauty merely preliminary, the next day art beauty is merely second-hand natural beauty.' Moritz Geiger's description of the dilemma of aesthetics has been true since the middle of the nineteenth century. There is a double reason for this pluralism of aesthetic theo- ries, which are often even left unfinished: It resides on the one hand in the funda- mental difficulty, indeed impossibility, of gaining general access to art by means of a system of philosophical categories, and on the other, in the fact that aesthetic statements have traditionally presupposed theories of knowledge. The problem- atic of theories of knowledge returns directly in aesthetics, because how aesthetics interprets its objects depends on the concept of the object held by the theory of knowledge. This traditional dependency, however, is defined by the subject matter itself and is already contained in the terminology."1 Although this well describes the situation, it does not sufficiently explain it; the other philosophical disciplines, including the theory of knowledge and logic, are no less controversial 332 DRAFT INTRODUCTION 333 and yet interest in them has not flagged to a similar extent.
    [Show full text]
  • Xiv*—Making Sense of Relative Truth
    March 15, 2005 Time: 04:38pm MacFarlane.tex xiv*—making sense of relative truth by John MacFarlane abstract The goal of this paper is to make sense of relativism about truth. There are two key ideas. (1) To be a relativist about truth is to allow that a sentence or proposition might be assessment-sensitive: that is, its truth value might vary with the context of assessment as well as the context of use. (2) Making sense of relativism is a matter of understanding what it would be to commit oneself to the truth of an assessment-sensitive sentence or proposition. nalytic philosophers tend to regard relativism about truth A as hopelessly confused, easily refuted, and even a sign of deficient intellectual character. This attitude is not entirely unreasonable. Proponents of relativism have focused much more on motivating their doctrine than on making sense of it, or even stating clearly what it is to be a relativist about truth. But if relativists have underestimated the difficulties here, their opponents have overestimated them. It is possible to make good sense of relativism about truth—or so I hope to show. In the first part of this paper, I will try to say exactly how the relativist’s position should be stated. Relativism about truth, I will argue, is the view that truth (of sentences or propositions) is relative not just to contexts of use but also to contexts of assessment. The philosophical challenge is to explain what this talk of ‘truth relative to a context of assessment’ means. In the second part of the paper, I will meet this challenge—not by giving a definition (that is not how one should expect to illuminate fundamental concepts like truth), but by giving assessment- relative truth a role to play in a normative account of assertion.
    [Show full text]
  • Introducing Disability Aesthetics
    RPP Disability Aesthetics Tobin Siebers http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=1134097 University of Michigan Press, 2010 Chapter 1 Introducing Disability Aesthetics Aesthetics tracks the sensations that some bodies feel in the presence of other bodies. This notion of aesthetics, first conceived by Alexander Baumgarten, posits the human body and its affective relation to other bodies as foundational to the appearance of the beautiful—and to such a powerful extent that aesthetics suppresses its underlying corporeality only with difficulty. The human body is both the subject and object of aesthetic production: the body creates other bodies prized for their ability to change the emotions of their maker and endowed with a semblance of vitality usually ascribed only to human beings. But all bodies are not cre- ated equal when it comes to aesthetic response. Taste and disgust are vola- tile reactions that reveal the ease or disease with which one body might incorporate another. The senses revolt against some bodies, while other bodies please them. These responses represent the corporeal substrata on which aesthetic effects are based. Nevertheless, there is a long tradition of trying to replace the underlying corporeality of aesthetics with idealist and disembodied conceptions of art. For example, the notion of “disin- terestedness,” an ideal invented in the eighteenth century but very much alive today, separates the pleasures of art from those of the body, while the twentieth-century notion of “opticality” denies the bodily character of visual perception. The result is a nonmaterialist aesthetics that devalues the role of the body and limits the definition of art.
    [Show full text]
  • Aesthetics—What? Why? and Wherefore?
    KENDALL WALTON Aesthetics—What? Why? and Wherefore? It is a very great honor to address my friends and philosophy of quantum physics are younger. But colleagues as president of the American Society these are clearly subcategories of traditional, well- for Aesthetics, an organization that plays a unique established areas of philosophy—ethics and phi- role in a field that is, at once, a major traditional losophy of science—and they inherit much of their branch of philosophy and also central to disci- identity and sense of purpose from their parents. plines often regarded as remote from philosophy, Aesthetics is not so fortunate. It is related in vari- as well as depending crucially on their contribu- ous important ways to epistemology, metaphysics, tions. philosophy of mind, philosophy of language— I will follow the lead of one of my distinguished indeed it overlaps all of them—but these older predecessors in this office, Peter Kivy, who used relatives are at best aunts and uncles to aesthetics, the occasion of his own presidential address twelve not parents. Aesthetics must figure out for itself years ago to step back and reflect on the state of what exactly it is. the discipline and the nature of aesthetics.1 Two kinds of issues about the field need to be addressed: What is distinctive about this branch i. what is aesthetics? of philosophy, in contrast to others? And what is philosophy? Under the first heading, we will ask Aesthetics is a strange field, in some ways a con- what aesthetics is the philosophy of , what domain fused one.
    [Show full text]
  • Of the Standard of Taste: David Hume's Aesthetic Ideology
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Of the Standard of Taste: David Hume's Aesthetic Ideology 著者 Okochi Sho journal or SHIRON(試論) publication title volume 42 page range 1-18 year 2004-12-20 URL http://hdl.handle.net/10097/57594 SHIRON No.42 (2004) Of the Standard of Taste: David Hume’s Aesthetic Ideology Sho Okochi The relationship between moral philosophy and aesthetics still remains one of the most important problems to be clarified in eighteenth-century British intellectual history. Both of these theoretical discourses have one important question in common—the question of how sentiment, which seems individual and idiosyncratic, can be the standard of judgment. As many commentators have already suggested, in the background of the emergence of moral philosophy and aesthetics during the period was the rapid commercialization of British society.1 After Mandeville inveighed against Shaftesbury’s theory of virtue, the theorists of moral senti- ments—many of whom were Scottish—tried to answer the question of how a modern commercial society that approves individual desires and passions as the driving force of commerce can avoid moral corruption.2 They constructed subtle arguments to demonstrate that principles regu- lating moral degeneration were incorporated into the mechanism of human sentiment. Theorists of ethics and aesthetics in the age from Shaftesbury to Richard Payne Knight never ceased to discuss the prob- lem of taste. The term ‘taste,’ derived from bodily palate, served British moral philosophers as the best metaphor through which to signify the inner faculty that intuitively grasps general rules of art and of life and manners.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant on the Beautiful: the Interest in Disinterestedness
    Kant on the Beautiful: The Interest in Disinterestedness Paul Daniels In the Critique of the Power of Judgment, Immanuel Kant proposes a puzzling account of the experience of the beautiful: that aesthetic judg- ments are both subjective and speak with a universal voice.1 These proper- ties – the subjective and the universal – seem mutually exclusive but Kant maintains that they are compatible if we explain aesthetic judgment in terms of the mind’s a priori structure, as explicated in his earlier Critique of Pure Reason. Kant advances two major claims towards arguing for the compatibility of the subjectivity and universality of the experience of beauty: (i) that aesthetic judgments are ‘disinterested’, and (ii) that the universality of an aesthetic judgment derives from the transcendental idealist’s account of ordinary spatio-temporal experience – that is, our ordinary cognitive framework can explain the experience of beauty. If correct, these two claims support the thesis that, while the experience of beauty is wholly sub- jective, it nevertheless speaks with a universal voice (or, the experience of beauty can be related among subjects). I will move to interpret Kant’s the- ory of the beautiful with reference to his earlier two Critiques in order to bet- ter understand the marriage of subjectivity and universality. In turn, this re- veals a deeper symmetry between the disinterestedness of the experience of beauty and the freedom of moral action, allowing Kant to maintain, as he 2 indeed does, that “beauty is the symbol of morality.” The claim that aesthetic judgments are ‘disinterested’ means that a genuine aesthetic judgment does not include any extrinsic considerations COLLOQUY text theory critique 16 (2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Final Thesis
    A DEFENSE OF AESTHETIC ANTIESSENTIALISM: MORRIS WEITZ AND THE POSSIBLITY OF DEFINING ‘ART’ _____________________________ A Thesis Presented to The Honors Tutorial College Ohio University _____________________________ In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for Graduation from the Honors Tutorial College with the degree of Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy and Art History _____________________________ By Jordan Mills Pleasant June, 2010 ii This thesis has been approved by The Honors Tutorial College and the Department of Philosophy ___________________________ Dr. Arthur Zucker Chair, Department of Philosophy Thesis Advisor ___________________________ Dr. Scott Carson Honors Tutorial College, Director of Studies Philosophy ___________________________ Jeremy Webster Dean, Honors Tutorial College iii This thesis has been approved by The Honors Tutorial College and the Department of Art History ___________________________ Dr. Jennie Klein Chair, Department of Art History Thesis Advisor ___________________________ Dr. Jennie Klein Honors Tutorial College, Director of Studies Art History ___________________________ Jeremy Webster Dean, Honors Tutorial College iv Dedicated to Professor Arthur Zucker, without whom this work would have been impossible. v Table Of Contents Thesis Approval Pages Page ii Introduction: A Brief History of the Role of Definitions in Art Page 1 Chapter I: Morris Weitz’s “The Role of Theory in Aesthetics” Page 8 Chapter II: Lewis K. Zerby’s “A Reconsideration of the Role of the Theory in Aesthetics. A Reply to Morris Weitz”
    [Show full text]
  • Beauty from a Pragmatist and Somaesthetic Perspective a Conversation with Richard Shusterman
    Stefano Marino Page 6–11 Beauty from a Pragmatist and Somaesthetic Perspective A Conversation with Richard Shusterman Stefano Marino Richard Shusterman is an American pragmatist philosopher, currently Dorothy F. Schmidt Eminent Scholar in the Humanities, Professor of Philosophy and English, and Director of the “Center for Body, Mind, and Culture” at Florida Atlantic University (FAU). Shusterman is mostly known for his contributions in the field of pragmatist aesthetics and the emerging field of somaesthetics. Among the main topics of his original development of a pragmatist philosophical perspective one can mention experience (and aesthetic experience, in particular), the definition of art, the question of interpretation, the philosophical defense of the value and significance of popular art (in comparison to the frequent devaluation of the latter by many philosophers and intellectuals), the revaluation of the idea of philosophy as an art of living, and finally the strong emphasis of the role of the body in most (or perhaps all) human practices, activities and experiences. This deep concern for embodiment led to his proposing the field of somaesthetics, and eventually to the existence of The Journal of Somaesthetics, of which he is one of the founding editors. Since pragmatist aesthetics is one of the leading trends in contemporary aesthetics, and since beauty is one of the guiding concepts of all research in aesthetics since its foundation with Baumgarten and Kant until today, we thought it would be interesting to ask Shusterman about the role that beauty played in his philosophical thought and in his vision of somaesthetics. 1. Together with taste, genius, the sublime and a few other concepts, beauty (or: the beautiful) surely represents one of the main questions in the whole history of aesthetics.
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Aesthetics Handbook
    Dear Forest Service Employees, I am very pleased to introduce the revised Landscape Aesthetics Handbook. This Handbook replaces Agriculture Handbook 462 - The Visual Management System, which has been an important tool for visual resource management for the past 25 years. The users and owners of the national forests continue to express a strong interest in maintaining the character of forest and grassland settings. These settings provide special places for recreation and visual amenities. Alfred Runte stated in a book called The National Forest Idea (published in 1991) "There is no question...that the national forests are major contributors to an American sense of place, to an identity with landscape that transcends eco- nomics for its own sake. The founders of the national forest idea...were consistent in their advocacy for landscape aesthetics. The forests not only should be functional, they should be beautiful as well." This idea is one of the fundamental principles of the Landscape Aesthetics Handbook. While retaining many of the basic inventory elements of the Visual Management System, the Landscape Aesthetics Handbook incorporates much of what we are learning about the management of ecosystems. The landscapes we see today are the result of both natural and human processes that have occurred over time. Understanding these processes will help us consider the effects of proposed changes in the landscape and to incorpo- rate people's values into our decisions more effectively. Please begin using the concepts and terms contained in this Handbook as you work on new projects or initiate forest plan revisions. I am confident that with this revised Handbook, the Forest Service will not only continue to be a national leader in visual resource management, but will also demon- strate a strong commitment to integrating human values into ecosystem management.
    [Show full text]