What is aesthetics?

The philosophy of art, or aesthetics, started to become a defined area of its own around
the end of the eighteenth century with the publication of Immanuel Kant’s Critique of
Judgement. With some notable exceptions, such as Aristotle’s Poetics, before this philosophers
were generally more concerned with the relation of art to other areas – ethics, politics or
metaphysics – than with art in its own right.
Aesthetics is concerned with a number of questions. What is art? What defines it and
distinguishes it from other pursuits, such as craft, education or entertainment? In considering the
purpose of art, we may ask whether it has intrinsic or extrinsic value: do we value ‘art for art’s
sake’ or as a means to something else? Is it primarily a form of expression, a vehicle for
informing and improving, or merely a means of enjoyment? As we’ll see, the various theories
that have been put forward over the years have favoured different defining qualities, and have
stressed the role of the mind, emotions, imagination and senses to different extents. But before
we get into these controversies, let’s ask a more general question.

What is art?

Before we define art we need to look at the types of thing that are generallynconsidered
to be ‘artistic’. In this chapter we will use the term ‘art’ and ‘artist’ to include all art forms,
including fiction, drama, dance, music, painting and sculpture, and ‘audience’ to describe anyone
who is in a position to appreciate such work.
Firstly, there are the visual arts: painting and drawing, printmaking and sculpture. A more
recent addition here is photography, which for some time was not considered a genuine art form
(and still isn’t by some). ‘It’s just pressing a button, isn’t it? Where’s the skill in that?’
Suchattitudes highlight one of the traditional assumptions about art, that it should involve some
sort of expertise. The artist is in some way ‘special’, either in terms of skill or insight – not just
anyone can be an artist. Of course, the best photographers are extremely skilful, and also possess
a ‘good eye’ for composition and photo opportunities, but it does raise an interesting point.

This problem continues when we think about other forms of art. Ballet and theatre are
forms of art, but what about musical theatre or TV dramas? Such distinctions are often expressed
in terms of ‘low’ and ‘high brow’, or ‘pop’ and ‘serious’ culture, and we also meet it in literature
– Dan Brown vs. Shakespeare – and music – Beethoven vs. The Beatles. But what distinguishes
these different levels? Some might consider the music of The Beatles or Pink Floyd to be
genuinely artistic in that it attains a level of creativity and seriousness that sets it apart from other
commercial pop music. But if we admit this, then what about other aspects of pop culture? What
about sport, for instance? Many aficionados argue that Lionel Messi’s divine control of a
football makes him an artist. How is Messi’s exquisite footwork any different from, say, that of
the dancer Vaslav Nijinsky, who was widely considered an artistic
genius? Isn’t it just snobbery?

Perhaps we can point to the fact that sport is competitive, or that it involves financial
rewards, but artists too enter competitions, win prizes and receive grants. Still, isn’t it the case
that for artists, the aesthetic effect is the primary goal, whereas for footballers, the primary goal
is, well, to score a goal, and any beauty that results is a by-product? Art has an aesthetic purpose;
sport, a competitive one. But even this answer could be questioned. Some sports people would
rather play a beautiful game than ‘win ugly’ and some artists are motivated by politics or ego,
not pure aesthetic effect. Things are not quite so black and white, it seems.

Institutional Theory of Art

One response to this is to argue that art is defined by the experts and other knowledgeable
members of the art-appreciating section of society. This is known as the institutional theory of
art, first suggested by the philosopher Arthur C. Danto, in that it sees art as defined by the social
institution of ‘the artworld’. Art is what appears in galleries, chosen by art critics and curators.
To some, this smacks of elitism. If I like something, and think it has artistic value, then isn’t my
opinion as good as theirs? But the main point of the institutional theory is not that the artworld’s
view is better than anyone else’s, it’s just that its view is what defines art. Consider religion. You
could say that Roman Catholicism is just what Roman Catholics say it is. That doesn’t mean we
think Catholics have superior theological judgment. The art world might be full of idiots, but if
they say something counts as art, it’s art. That doesn’t even necessarily make it good.
Another response to the elitism charge is to say that perhaps experts really do possess
knowledge and taste that others don’t. A wine buff may discern raspberry notes, oakey tones and
the scent of summer flowers, whereas for me it’s red, 13 per cent proof and was on offer at the
local supermarket. Isn’t it the same in art? Doesn’t the expert possess more sophisticated
standards of taste than me?

This type of argument was first put forward by David Hume. Hume admitted that our
appreciation of art was basically a subjective experience, involving emotion and sensation rather
than intellect. However, he believed that not all responses were equally well grounded. Over
time, humanity has evolved various ‘standards of taste’ that allow us to distinguish between
lower and higher pleasures. A child likes sweet things, but eventually the pleasure it gets from
eating straight from the sugar bowl will lessen. In a similar way, social standards of taste evolve
over time through the establishment of general consensus among people. Through experience,
most realise that Twelfth Night is better than Twilight, or foie gras than faggots (for instance).
But why? Even if we accept that such standards exist, we may still question them. Not everyone
likes Shakespeare or prefers fine dining to more everyday fare. Should it matter that my taste
differs from that of the experts?

From this initial discussion, we can see that the nature and purpose of art have been
controversial questions for some time. Whether something is or isn’t art may be as disputed a
question as whether something is good or bad art. To try to shed some more light on these issues
we shall turn now to some traditional answers, of which there are three main strands: art as
imitation, art as expression, and art as form.