Aesthetics Final Paper

Reflective Tag:

This essay dates back to my third-class year, and was written as a final paper for the philosophy class “Aesthetics.” This essay is a comparison of the views of 2 major philosophers on the subject of taste — its function, how it is determined, and its subjectivity. This assignment shows my ability to evaluate sources to produce effective arguments, as I first evaluate the works of each philosopher, compare them, then offer my own opinion on the matter. This is a good example of this, as I have to put the two sources in conversation with each other, explaining how I believe each philosopher would reach to the other argument. For this reason, the essay is also an example of me using appropriate disciplinary terminology to both criticize and analyze the texts. I also use outside sources separate from the two philosophers to support my assertions. I think this is a good example of evaluating sources, as the source material is incredibly dense and confusing, and requires parsing and analyzing that (for the most part) only a cadet trained in our major could accomplish well.

Ben Outland

ERH-311W

Major Stoneman

5/4/17

Contrasting Theories of Aesthetic Taste: How Can They Change the Definition of Art?

Taste is an important function of human social communication that is discussed everyday. Its literal and biological aspects are often brought up over simple dinner fare– conversations of whether or not food or drink is enjoyable. Contrarily, taste can also be argued in terms of its philosophical and aesthetic meaning. Are there norms and standards of taste? Is aesthetic taste subjective, and what factors make up one’s palate? What causes individuals to perceive certain works of art as tasteful while others view the same work as unpleasant? In this essay I will discuss two thinkers who have offered theories on aesthetic taste: Immanuel Kant and David Hume. I will first explain Kant’s view, then show how Hume would evaluate Kant’s position while making Hume’s view evident, lastly, before concluding, I will explain my personal philosophical thesis on how applying one of their theories on taste changes your perception on the definition of artwork. Primarily, Hume believes that “we have a standard for preferring some tastes above others because we have a standard for preferring some perceptions above others” (Gaut and Lopes 41), while Kant asserts that taste operates through “a subjective principle, which determines what pleases or displeases only through feeling and not through concepts” (50). Both of these thinkers offer the most contrasting views on the theme of taste to date. Their views continue to inspire debates and which view is “correct” is still argued in contemporary philosophy. Applying one of these views to your daily life changes your personal ideas of what is or is not art.

Immanuel Kant’s overarching point on taste is subjective. In order to reach this conclusion, Kant provides an explanation. He begins by explaining his concept of aesthetic judgments as opposed what he calls cognitive judgements (47). When you make a cognitive judgement, you use concepts, as in the example Gaut and Lopes provide of judging that you are aware of the print on paper in front of you (47). However, Kant asserts that with aesthetic judgements, you use a feeling of pleasure or displeasure to make your judgement. So judgements of taste are “a subset of that type of judgement that says something is pleasing to apprehend; they are therefore subjective rather than objective judgments” (47). Dr. Warren Phipps also backs up Kant’s claims on subjectivity, stating: “sensation, which is purely subjective and singular” (Phipps 305). Thus, through aesthetic judgements as opposed to cognitive, we each view artwork in our own unique way and have personal likes and dislikes, which is commonly known as “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”

Kant also explains beauties subjectivity by the concept of necessary pleasure. According to Kant, the beautiful has a “necessary relation to satisfaction” (Gaut and Lopes 49). This means that when we perceive something as beautiful, we think that everyone else should also see it as such. However, this is not the case. Not everyone always agrees with our tastes, so the principle of necessary pleasure must be subjective. Kant claims that the necessity is subjective and conditioned (50). Furthermore, he argues that there are no rules or standards that govern the faculty of taste: “judgement of taste, a judgment based perceptual pleasure and not susceptible of proof through appeal to definite rules or principles” (50). As discussed below, this quote is a direct commentary on the view of Hume, who believes that taste is based on rules. Thus Kant has created the modern notion of subjective taste in judgment of beautiful things.

While subjectivity of taste is an interesting concept, it raises a compelling counterargument. Perhaps it is not a good thing that under Kant’s view, anything can be considered art. Should there be some standard to what is or is not art? Anything that provides us with this sentiment is automatically art? This idea is represented by Piero Manzoni’s artwork entitled “Artist’s Shit.” The work is a depiction of a can labeled “Artist’s Shit.” This piece speaks to the idea that not just anything an artist whips up should necessarily be considered art. Just because you call yourself an artist does not mean that everything you make is good artwork.

While Kant holds that aesthetic taste is subjective, David Hume offers a vastly different view: that there is a standard for judging individual tastes. Hume backs this theory up with the evidence that the mind naturally finds pleasure in observing certain principles, and displeasure in others (41). For example, people are naturally inclined to be disgusted or taken aback by an extremely gory and unpleasant painting, while a landscape may be more pleasurable to look at. This concept is further explained by Dr. Carroll: “everyone appears to agree that, for example, elegance is good” (Carroll 181). Everyone tends to agree that certain artistic traits make a work of art more beautiful.

Hume’s standard of taste also establishes that there are rules of art. Hume believes that these rules are discovered via observation, and that artworks are consciously created either in accordance or in defiance to these rules (Carroll 182). Since everyone is biologically constituted in roughly the same way, artwork made in accordance to the rules will cause a sentiment of beauty across all observers. Likewise, a work created without attention to the rules will be displeasing. Hume continues his discussion on the rules of art by explaining that diversity in tastes can be explained by personal and circumstantial backgrounds. In others words, some people are less adept to receiving aesthetic sentiments. On the other hand, some people are more adept to perceiving the standards that make art tasteful, and Hume claims that we should follow what these expert critics say. This will help us learn to adjust to “the aesthetic situation and in bracketing intrusive circumstances when respond[ing] to artwork” (Carroll 183). Thus Hume has forwarded the view that taste is based on standards or rules of art. If Kant were to explain his view to Hume, Hume’s counterargument to the concept of subjective taste would be that there are differing tastes which can be explained by the natural ability of some to maximally and keenly perceive these sentiments. However, Hume does hold that there are not only standards, but that people can have subjective responses to art. He simply believes that if someone subjectively finds a piece of bad art pleasing, they are wrong.

A counterargument to Hume’s view would be the social presuppositions of taste. Those who look down about others for having “bad taste” are often regarded as snobs. It is postulated by Shusterman that cultivation of refined taste requires education, leisure, and comfort, making it seem like a high class privilege to be able to develop good aesthetic taste (Gaut and Lopes 263). Perhaps the standards of taste by which Hume believes are required to make aesthetic judgements are merely principles invented by societal elites. If this is the case, then Hume’s standards are not actually required to make good aesthetic judgements. This view is supported by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, who forwards that “aesthetic preferences are the products of class distinctions rather than the recognition of standards of quality” (263). He also states that the different eating habits that divide those in certain classes and occupations also represent the social aspect of taste (263-264). For example take the aesthetic appreciate of a fine wine, a lower class individual may take this to be snobby; is wine truly a more aesthetic beverage than others, or is merely made out to be by the elite? This theory of the social reasoning behind good taste shows a weakness in Hume’s theory.

These two major aesthetic philosophers have provided theories as to what taste is and how people perceive art. I posit that if you apply either Hume or Kant’s theory to your daily life, the nature and definition of art changes drastically. For example, if you apply Hume’s theory of sentiments of taste, you may see crudely drawn street graffiti and think of it as nothing more than a scribble. However, if you see the world through the eyes of Kant, you can observe an aesthetic value and beauty in the street art. This gives us an angle from which to answer a major philosophical question: what is art? Through the lenses of a certain theory, one can only see things that obey certain rules which evoke sentiments as art. Through a contrasting theory, one’s world may suddenly become filled with art. Benedetto Croce defines art as “intuitive expression” (Gaut and Lopes 213). Using Kant’s theory, we are more susceptible to seeing many more objects as reflections of intuitive expression. Under Hume, we may not regard others intuitions as reaching the standards required to be considered art.

While today many people would agree that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we would not all agree as much about fine artworks. There are many reasons to view artwork through the lenses of either Kant or Hume, however whichever theory you prescribe will inevitably change the definition, scope, and range of art. The questions of what is taste, and what is art are vast and will continue into modern aesthetics. Future work could continue this discussion by contrasting the theories of taste of Hume and Kant with the views of even more aestheticians.

Works Cited

Carroll, Noel. “Hume’s Standard of Taste.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 43, no. 2, 1984, pp. 181–194

Gaut, Berys Nigel, and Dominic Lopes. The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics. 3rd ed. New York City: Routledge, 2013. Print.

Phipps, David Warren. “KANT’S ‘ÆSTHETIC.’” The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, vol. 11, no. 3, 1877, pp. 299–310