Central concepts of aesthetics: a proposal for their application

by

Dr. Wolfgang Ruttkowski

I. Prior Attempts at Sub-Dividing Aesthetic Concepts

II. Some Preliminary Questions:

1. How Do We Use the Term “Art”?
2. What Is The Difference Between “Art Object” and “Aesthetic Object”?
3. If the “aesthetic” and “artistic” values of an artifact are not the same, what is their relevancy for original works of art and their perfect copies?
4. Can Art - In Spite Of Its Dependency On The “Art World” and On Its Recipients - Contain Generally Valid Meaning?

III. The Central Concepts “aesthetic - artistic - beautiful”

IV. Intersections Of the Central Concepts

V. The Nomenclature Of Aesthetic Qualities, Experiences, And Objects

VI. Summary In The Form Of Suggestions

I. Prior Attempts at Sub-Dividing Aesthetic Concepts

Modifying an important essay by Frank Sibley ^[1], we could differentiate the following groups amongst the wide range of concepts occasionally used for the description of works of art (see diagram 1):
Terms which denote the aesthetic quality of an object (usually of a work of art), and (2) such concepts which seemingly name a quality of the object but in reality, however, only name our response to the latter, e.g., “magnificent”, “moving” or “overpowering”. What is magnificent about the observed object, why and how it overpowers, is not stated. - Within the first group (1), we can discern two kinds of concepts, those which expressly relate to the aesthetic character of the work of art (1.1) and those which don’t (1.2), e.g., “well preserved”, “washed out”, “bleached” etc. Again, within the first of the latter two groups (1.1) there are terms, which describe and/or evaluate qualities of the artwork (1.1.1) and others, which only evaluate (1.1.2), especially the pairs of opposites “beautiful-ugly”, “good-bad”, and “tasteful-tasteless”. Within the first of these two groups (1.1.1), we find again two sub-groups, firstly the “aesthetic descriptives” in the narrow sense of the word (1.1.1.1) which differentiate qualities which are only discernible for sensitive recipients, and descriptives which can be verified by everyone (1.1.1.2), e.g., that a painting is “dominated by blue tones” or a sonata “consists of four movements” or a play “contains many short scenes”. The truly “aesthetic” descriptions (1.1.1.1) can either be exclusively applied with a truly aesthetic meaning (1.1.1.1.1), e.g., “graceful”, “elegant” or “sublime”, or they can have a double function, meaning they can be used with a non-aesthetic and an aesthetic, quasi-metaphorical meaning (1.1.1.1.2), e.g., terms like “unified”, “dynamic”, or “balanced”. The terms in group 1.1.1.1.1 we could name “truly and exclusively aesthetic” qualities.

[diagram only in downloadfile]

Sibley is concentrating on clarifying the logical status of our group 1.1.1 and its sub-groups (“We cannot prove with arguments that something is graceful” etc.) and does not seem to consider the group’s 1.1.2 and 2 worthy of a discussion. Karl Svoboda ^[2], on the other hand, wishes to acknowledge “only one truly and purely aesthetic category, the beautiful and the ugly”, precisely those categories (1.1.2), which Sibley ignores. “The graceful constitutes a part of the Beautiful, and the other values -- the Sublime, the Base, the Tragic, the Comical, the Innovative, the Naive, the Artificial, the Realistic, the Idealistic, the Serious, the Baroque, the Classical, the Mysterious, and the Transparent -- are not categories or basic concepts, but rather styles of art, artistic convictions, or other values ... one cannot force them into a system.”
Other authors, e.g. Max Dessoir ^[3], differentiate within the aesthetic experience a limited number of aesthetic responses, e.g., Beautiful - Ugly, Base - Sublime, Comical - Tragical.

[...]

[1] "Aesthetic Concepts“ in: The Philosophical Review (1959) 421-450.

[2] "Über die so genannten ästhetischen Kategorien" in: Jahrbuch für Ästhetik VII (1962) 7-27.

[3] Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft (Stuttgart 1906) S. 195 ff.