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” value of an artifact are not the same, what is their relevancy for original works OF 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
(In: Acta Humanistica, Humanities S. No. 26, March 1999, 203-222)
Table of Contents
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” value 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
Objectives and Topics
The paper examines the logical status and application of central aesthetic concepts, arguing for a strict differentiation between the “aesthetic,” the “artistic,” and the “beautiful” to better account for contemporary developments in art and art theory.
- Theoretical analysis of aesthetic vs. artistic concepts
- Critique of traditional beauty standards and their cultural dependencies
- Distinction between "Art Objects" and "Aesthetic Objects"
- Sociological perspectives on the "Art World"
- Proposals for a refined nomenclature for aesthetic qualities and experiences
Excerpt from the Book
I. Prior Attempts at Sub-Dividing Aesthetic Concepts
Modifying an important essay by Frank Sibley, we could differentiate the following groups amongst the wide range of concepts occasionally used for the description of works of art (see diagram 1):
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.
Summary of Chapters
I. Prior Attempts at Sub-Dividing Aesthetic Concepts: Provides a structural breakdown of terms used to describe art, distinguishing between qualities of the object and the recipient's response.
II. Some Preliminary Questions: Explores fundamental definitions of art, the distinction between artistic and aesthetic objects, and the relationship between original works and their copies.
III. The Central Concepts “aesthetic - artistic - beautiful”: Argues for the separation of these three terms, highlighting how beauty is a culturally dependent evaluative concept rather than an intrinsic requirement for art.
IV. Intersections Of the Central Concepts: Uses a graphic model to demonstrate how the spheres of the aesthetic, the artistic, and the beautiful can overlap in various ways.
V. The Nomenclature Of Aesthetic Qualities, Experiences, And Objects: Investigates the interaction of aesthetic qualities within artworks and the complex, manifold nature of the aesthetic experience.
VI. Summary In The Form Of Suggestions: Offers concrete recommendations for a more precise, comparative, and non-eurocentric approach to the study of aesthetics and art theory.
Keywords
Aesthetics, Art Theory, Artistic, Beautiful, Aesthetic Experience, Art Object, Cultural Relativity, Sibley, Henckmann, Art World, Nomenclature, Values, Perception, Philosophy of Art, Modern Art
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this work?
The work focuses on clarifying the logical status and application of central aesthetic concepts, specifically arguing for a clear distinction between the "aesthetic," the "artistic," and the "beautiful."
What are the central thematic fields covered?
The text covers the definitions of art objects, the nature of aesthetic experience, the role of cultural and historical determinants in beauty standards, and the philosophical study of aesthetics as a field of inquiry.
What is the main goal or research question?
The goal is to provide a more useful and precise nomenclature for aesthetic discourse, enabling scholars to better address contemporary art forms and move away from restrictive, eurocentric definitions.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The author employs a comparative, philosophical analysis of aesthetic concepts, building upon and critiquing existing systems (such as those by Sibley, Henckmann, and Ingarden).
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body treats the differentiation of aesthetic terms, the historical and cultural relativity of "beauty," the distinction between art production and aesthetic reception, and the stratification of aesthetic concepts.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include Aesthetics, Art Theory, Artistic, Beautiful, Aesthetic Experience, Art Object, Cultural Relativity, and Art World.
How does the author define an "Aesthetic Object"?
The author argues that an aesthetic object is primarily a projection; it is the recipient who turns an object into an "aesthetic" one by elevating it out of its profane context.
Why does the author advocate for a separation of "beauty" and "art"?
The author argues that "beauty" is merely an evaluative concept that has become historically merged with art, but that art does not inherently require beauty to be recognized or valid, especially in the context of global art history.
- Quote paper
- Dr. Wolfgang Ruttkowski (Author), 1999, Central concepts of aesthetics - a proposal for their application, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/7666
