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” 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
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” 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
Objectives and Topics
This work aims to clarify the often-confused terminology in aesthetics by proposing a strict separation between the concepts of "art," "the aesthetic," and "the beautiful," arguing that such a differentiation is essential for a contemporary understanding of artistic and aesthetic phenomena.
- The logical distinction between "Art Object" and "Aesthetic Object."
- The cultural and sociological determinants of aesthetic standards.
- The relationship between artistic production and aesthetic experience.
- The critique of traditional, Eurocentric definitions of beauty in art.
- The necessity of an "open" and "comparative" aesthetic discipline.
Excerpt from the Book
II. Some Preliminary Questions:
In order to understand the relationship between the concepts of “the Artistic” and “the Aesthetic”, we have to ask ourselves some preliminary questions.
1. How Do We Use The Term “Art” [6]?
The oldest and widest meaning derives from the Latin term “ars, artes” and resembles the English “skill” or the German “Können”, as in “the skill of baking bread”. Until the Romantic period, the “art of writing poems” was understood in a similar way (e.g., by the “Meistersänger”) and so was the art of producing music and architecture. Also the “Liberal Arts” (“Artes liberales”) at the universities have nothing to do with our new and subjective concept of art. The connotation was a tradition of rules, which have to be mastered. In Asia, this understanding was valid until the beginning of the influence of the Western striving for originality and innovation at any price. In the traditional arts (e.g., in Japanese Noh and Kabuki) it is still the rule. The breaking of rules by genius, which Western “Deviation Aesthetics” in particular has ranked as its highest value, is even in the West no older than the Renaissance.
Also relatively new is the differentiation between so-called “high” art and merely “applied”, “decorative” or “entertaining” arts. The latter are not expected to be original to the same degree. All of these differentiations relate mainly to art objects and not to aesthetic objects, the former being the material basis for the latter.
Summary of Chapters
I. Prior Attempts at Sub-Dividing Aesthetic Concepts: This chapter reviews Sibley’s classification of aesthetic terms and notes the contributions of other scholars like Svoboda and Henckmann to categorize aesthetic experiences.
II. Some Preliminary Questions: This section explores foundational queries regarding the definition of art, the distinction between art objects and aesthetic objects, and the impact of cultural determinants on aesthetic value.
III. The Central Concepts “aesthetic - artistic - beautiful”: This chapter argues for the strict separation of "artistic," "aesthetic," and "beautiful" to enable more precise differentiation in aesthetic discourse.
IV. Intersections Of the Central Concepts: This chapter uses a graphical model to illustrate how the spheres of "Aesthetic," "Art," and "Beautiful" can overlap or remain distinct.
V. The Nomenclature Of Aesthetic Qualities, Experiences, And Objects: This chapter discusses the complexity of aesthetic experience and the projection involved in turning objects into aesthetic ones.
VI. Summary In The Form Of Suggestions: The final chapter provides a series of recommendations for re-defining the field of aesthetics to move beyond traditional Eurocentric and beauty-focused constraints.
Keywords
Aesthetics, Art Object, Aesthetic Object, Artistic Value, Aesthetic Experience, Beauty, Cultural Determinants, Art World, Modern Art, Philosophy of Art, Subjectivity, Interpretation, Comparative Aesthetics, Categorization, Nomenclature.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary objective of this work?
The work seeks to resolve conceptual confusion in aesthetics by strictly separating the terms "art," "the aesthetic," and "the beautiful" to better address contemporary developments in art.
What are the central thematic fields discussed?
The book focuses on the definitions of art, the social and historical construction of aesthetic values, the role of the recipient, and the critique of traditional "fine arts" paradigms.
Which scientific methodology does the author employ?
The author uses a analytical-philosophical approach, evaluating existing theories from scholars like Sibley, Ingarden, Danto, and Henckmann to construct a structured, comparative framework.
What is the core distinction between an "Art Object" and an "Aesthetic Object"?
An Art Object is an artifact produced within a cultural tradition, while an Aesthetic Object is the result of a recipient's subjective projection and experience when engaging with that artifact.
Does the author believe that beauty is a universal standard?
No, the author argues that beauty is a culturally determined concept of evaluation and that art does not need to be beautiful to be significant or valid.
Why should "aesthetics" not be defined as the "study of beauty"?
The author suggests that defining aesthetics solely through beauty limits the discipline; instead, it should be defined as the study of aesthetic experience and artistic creation.
How does the author characterize the role of the "Art World"?
The Art World, consisting of institutions like museums and critics, acts as an authoritative body that declares what qualifies as "art," independent of individual appreciation.
What does the author mean by "spots of indeterminacy"?
Referencing Ingarden, this term describes the inherent incompleteness of artworks, requiring the recipient to use imagination to fill in these gaps during the aesthetic experience.
- Citar trabajo
- Dr. Wolfgang Ruttkowski (Autor), 1999, Central concepts of aesthetics: a proposal for their application, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/82646
