Arnold Berleant

Re-thinking Aesthetics

Re-considering Philosophy and Aesthetics

o p p o rtu n ity fo r re flec tio n o n th e m eanings a n d uses o f b o th aesthetics an d

philo so ph y. W ith th e ch a lle n g e o f co n tem p o rary d evelopm en ts in the arts
a n d the re c o g n itio n o f th e diversity an d uniqueness of h u m a n cultures, m any
d iffe re n t in te rp re ta tio n s will surely em erge in the days to follow. M oreover,
th e tim ing o f this congress a t the en d o f the m illennium , while hardly a cosmic
o c c u rre n c e , still offers a n u n u su a l o p p o rtu n ity fo r p ro fo u n d re assessm ent
o f b o th a esth etics a n d philosop hy. I shall only b egin a process h e re th a t will
surely c o n tin u e in th e days th a t follow.
A esthetics is o fte n th o u g h t o f as o n e b ra n c h o f philosophy, som etim es,
in d e e d , a sec o n d a ry b ra n c h o f little significance fo r th e b ro a d reach es o f
p h ilo s o p h ic th o u g h t. T h is is som ew h at o d d , since R ant, w ho is generally
re g a rd e d as a fo u n d in g fig u re in m o d e rn philosophy, took the aesthetic as
his epistem ological fo u n d a tio n a n d th en developed a th eory o f th e aesthetic
as th e system atic u n ifie r o f know ledge a n d m orality. A n d a t a g ath e rin g o f
aesthe ticia ns fro m all parts o f the world, it requires little arg u m e n t to dismiss
th e low re p u te o f aesthetics a n d acknow ledge its philosophical significance.

difficult to re c o n s id e r his d o m in a n t influence on the discipline o f aesthetics.

Yet th a t is precisely w ha t I sh o u ld like to pro p o se h e re . F or w hat co uld be
m o re in k e e p in g w ith b o th th e critical trad itio n o f p hilosop hical th o u g h t
a n d th e o p e n n e ss o f a e sth e tic p e rc e p tio n th a n to re -th in k the fo u n d a tio n s
o f o u r discipline.

e x a m in a tio n o f th e fo u n d a tio n s of m o d e rn aesthetics. This kind o f exp lora-

tio n is a t th e sam e tim e a p ro fo u n d ly ph ilo so ph ical act, for ph ilo so ph ical
prem ises lie a t th e very fo u n d a tio n o f m o d e rn aesthetics. E xp loring these
p re m ises, in d e e d c h a lle n g in g the m , can lea d us to a new basis fo r aesthetics
d e riv e d fro m aesthetic in q u iry a n d n o t as an a fte rth o u g h t o f a ph ilo so ph ic al
tra d itio n w hose orig in s w ere q u ite in d e p e n d e n t o f th e ae sthe tic dom ain .
Conversely, re -th in kin g aesthetics may suggest new ways o f do in g philosophy.

Filozofski vestnik, X X (2 /1 9 9 9 - X IV ICA), pp. 25-33. 25

 Arnold Berleant

The Radical Critique o f Aesthetics

In re c e n t years aesthetics has h a d so m e th in g o f a revival a n d is slowly

e m e rg in g from its philoso ph ic al eclipse. A t th e sam e tim e, it has b e e n th e
subject o f serious criticism an d fun dam ental reco nsideration. L et m e m e n tio n
two very d iffe re n t exam ples.
In The Ideology o f the Aesthetic, Terry' E a gle to n develop s a politico-social

sees the aesth etic in its historical co m plexity as a w indow in to c u ltu ra l a n d

political changes. F rom this perspective, th e very a u to n o m y c laim e d fo r th e
a e s th e tic se rv e s a l a r g e r p o litic a l p u r p o s e as a m o d e l fo r b o u rg e o is
individualism , th a t is, o f its own claims to au to no m y. T h u s th e a e sth e tic is
two-edged: It represents the political aspiratio ns to se lf-d ete rm in a tio n o f th e
m id d le class a n d p ro v id e s an u n c o n s tr a in e d lo c u s f o r s e n s ib ility a n d
im agination. At th e sam e tim e, how ever, th e ae sth e tic serves to in te rn a liz e
social pow er, re n d e rin g it, th ro u g h its tra n sfo rm a tio n in to subjectivity, all
th e m o re effective a repressive fo rc e .2 In a la rg e r sen se , th e n , a e s th e tic
a u to n o m y is specious, fo r th e a e s th e tic is n o t a u to n o m o u s a t all b u t is
harn esse d to a larger, political, pu rp o se . P e rh a p s this m ig h t b e c alle d, with
a p o lo g ie s to K ant, p u rp o s e w ith o u t p u rp o s iv e n e s s - a u tilita r ia n go al
m a sq u e ra d in g u n d e r th e guise o f b e in g self-contained.

political purpo se s, W olfgang W elsch ce n te rs his c ritiq u e o n th e a esth e tic ,

itself. H e finds th a t the aesthetic n o t only pervades th e w hole o f m o d e rn life
b u t lies a t th e h e a rt o f ph ilo sop hic al th o u g h t. T h e a esth e tic c o n c e rn s n o t
ju s t art b u t h u m a n culture en tout, a n d it spreads o u t to in fo rm th e very fabric
o f m eaning, truth, a nd reality. Thus c o n te m p o ra ry aestheticization processes
cover th e surface o f o u r w orld a n d re a c h b e y o n d to sh a p e social as well as

in te ra ctio n , a n d th e very shape o f c u ltu re , itself.3 M ore provocative still is

p rin cipa l directions: e x p a n d in g a e sth e tic p e rc e p tio n to th e full ra n g e o f

aisthesis, enlarging the range o f a rt to in clu d e b o th the m ultiplicity o f its in n e r

1 Terry Eagleton, The Ideology of the Aesthetic (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990), p. 3.

2 The Ideology o f the Aesthetic, pp. 23, 28.
3 Wolfgang Welsch, Undoing Aesthetics (London: Sage, 1997), pp. 5-7.
4 Undoing Aesthetics, p. 23.

26
 Re-thinking Aesthetics

aspects a n d d ie m any ways in w hich a rt pervades the w hole o f cu ltu re , an d

finally, e x te n d in g aesthe tics beyond a rt to society a nd th e life-world.5
I fin d th ese critiques o f aesthetics b o th im p o rta n t a n d convincing. T hey
h e ra ld a new stage in p hilo so p h ic a l dev elo pm e nt, o n e th a t recognizes the
fu n d a m e n ta l place o f aesth etic s in b o th th e criticism a n d co n stru c tio n o f
c o n te m p o ra ry c u ltu re a n d o f o u r very grasp o f reality. Yet for all th e ir bro a d
th ru s t, I believe th a t they d o n o t go quite d e e p en o u g h . E agleton encloses
a esth etics in its p olitical a n d historical c o n te x t, while W elsch ex pa nd s the
a e sth e tic in to a po w erful c u ltu ra l force. N e ith er c e n ters his critiq ue on the
a esth etic , itself.
Yet th e a e sth e tic th e o ry they work w ith stands sq u are in th e c e n te r o f
th e very p h ilo so p h ic tra d itio n they question. A nd u n til the defects in this
tra d itio n are ex p o se d a n d re p la c ed , any critiq ue o f aesthetics m erely snaps
a t th e heels o f a sluggish th o u g h still powerful beast. T he dom ain o f aesthetics
n e e d s to b e in v ad e d by a T ro ja n h orse, by a critique fro m w ithin the theory.
In th e p lu ralistic sp irit o f p o stm o d ern ism , th e n , I believe th at still m o re can
b e said, a n d this from th e s ta n d p o in t n o t o f cu lture o r o f history b u t o f the
a e sth e tic itself. T h e re are artistic gro un d s for a critiq ue o f aesthetics, and
th e re a re p h ilo so p h ic a l g ro u n d s, as well. A bove all, th e re are ex p e rie n tial
g ro u n d s. N o n e o f th ese is in d e p e n d e n t o f historical a n d cultu ral forces, b u t
a t th e sam e tim e they c a n n o t be re d u c e d to these forces. T h e critiqu e o f
ae sth e tic s m u st take p la ce o n m any levels a n d in m any forms.

Difficulties in Traditional Aesthetics

W e ste rn ae sth etic s has b e e n fo rm e d th ro u g h two m ajor influences -

first classical G reek, a n d th e n E n lig h te n m e n t th o u g h t, particularly as it was
fo rm u la te d by K ant. O f cou rse, these a re closely related . Yet new stran ds o f
th o u g h t em erg in g since the eig h tee n th century suggest sharply d iffe rent ways
o f co n c e iv in g ae sth e tic s. If I ca n c h a rac teriz e th e d o m in a n t tra d itio n in
a esthe tic s as K antian, w ha t we n e e d to exp lo re are th e possibilities o f a non-
Kan tian a esth etics or, b e tte r yet, a post-K antian aesthetics, an d to co nside r
th e ch aracteristics such a radically d ifferent aesthetics m ig h t display. I w ould
like to tak e th e o c ca sio n o f this con gress, a n d its provocative th e m e , to
ex a m in e som e o f these possibilities an d to suggest a new a n d different course
th a t a e sthetics m ig h t follow.
T h e b e g in n in g s o f m o v e m e n t away from K ant can b e trac ed back to

Undoing Aesthetics, pp. 95-99.

27
 Arnold Berleant

the m iddle o f the last century. W ith his p e n e tr a tin g eye a n d d ire c tn e ss o f
expression, N ietzsche recognized the fu n d a m e n ta l difficulty w ith tra d itio n a l

predicates o f beauty, h e gave p ro m in e n c e to those w hich fla tte r th e intellect,

i.e., im personality a n d universality.... K ant, like all p h ilo so p h e rs, in ste a d o f
viewing th e esthetic issue from the side o f th e artist, envisaged a rt a n d beauty

But it is n o t only the artist for w hom disinterestedness is n o t a p p ro p ria te.

If th e a p p re c ia to r ab a n d o n s th e objectifying, analytic stan ce o f th e sc h o la r
o r critic, the kind o f personal partic ip ation th a t h e o r she engages in is closer

spoke so disparagingly. I like to call this active a p p rec ia tiv e p a rtic ip a tio n

personal involvem ent th a t we have in o u r m ost fulfilled ae sthetic ex p e rie n c e .

T h e re a re o th e r re a so n s fo r w a n tin g to d is c a rd th e n o ti o n o f d is in te -
restedness. T h e a ttitu d e it enjoins lead s to d ista n cin g th e a rt o b je c t a n d to
circum scribing it with clea r b o u n d a rie s th a t isolate it fro m th e re s t o f th e
h u m a n w orld. In th e e ig h te e n th c e n tu ry w h e n th e fin e arts w e re b e in g
identified, sep ara te d from the o th e r arts, a n d given a distinctive status, an
a e s th e tic s th a t in s titu tio n a liz e d th is p ro c e ss a n d c o n f e r r e d a s p e c ia l
p ro m in e n c e on those arts h a d its value. W ith w id esp read a c c e p ta n c e o f th e
identity an d im portance o f the arts, such a n e e d n o lo n g e r exists. T o eternalize
an idea w hose significance is now largely historical b o th exaggerates its place
a n d h in d e rs aesthetic inquiry. A nd it m isdirects a n d o bstru c ts a p p re ciativ e
e x p e rie n c e .7

c ha lle n g ed . E ig h te e n th c e n tu ry ae sthe tic s is very m u c h a p ro d u c t o f th e

th in k in g o f th e tim es. It p laces in full view b o th its re lia n c e o n fa cu lty
psychology a n d th e e sse n tializin g a n d u n iv e rsa liz in g p h ilo s o p h y o f th e
E n lig h te n m e n t. F u rth e rm o re , it im po ses a scientific m o d e l o n a e s th e tic
u n d e rsta n d in g , a m odel th a t p ro c e e d s by ob jec tific a tio n , d issec tio n , a n d
analysis. T h u s the co n c ep tu al stru c tu re th a t we have in h e rite d fro m K ant

The Genealogy of Morals, T h ird Essay, 6.

British Journal of Aesthetics, 3 4 /3 (July 1994).

28
 Re-thinking Aesthetics

id e n tifie s d istin c t a n d s e p a ra te m odalities o f p e rc e p tio n a n d co n ce p tio n ,

b e g in n in g with th a t fam ous distinction itself. To separate p ercep t an d concept
p ro d u c e s a p ro b le m so m e aestheticians c o n tin u e to g ra p p le with: the place
o f k n o w le d g e in th e p e r c e p t u a l e x p e r ie n c e o f a r t. T h e r e a re o t h e r
p ro b le m a tic o p p o sitio n s in th e eig h te e n th cen tury ae sthe tic , such as those
b e tw e e n s e n s e a n d re a s o n , i n te r e s t a n d d is in te r e s t, a n d illu s io n o r
im a g in a tio n a n d reality. In th e co n te x t o f E n lig h te n m e n t rationalism , these
d is tin c tio n s w ere illu m in a tin g an d libera ting. Today they provide a false
clarity a n d a d e c ep tive o rd e r, a n d they e n th ra ll b o th u n d e rs ta n d in g an d
e x p e rie n c e . S erious q u e stio n s can be raised a b o u t w h e th e r we can speak
e ith e r o f re a so n o r o f sense w ith ou t th e o n e in clud in g th e o th e r, questions
s u p p o r t e d b o t h by p s y c h o lo g ic a l re s e a r c h a n d l a t e r p h ilo s o p h ic a l
deve lop m e nts. Similarly, th e purity o f disinterestedness is difficult to defend,
esp ecially as b o th th e m o tiv a tio n a n d the c o n su m p tio n o f a rt have b e e n
a b so rb e d in to th e co m m o d ificatio n o f cu ltu re .8A nd th e theo re tical force o f
existential p henom enology, herm eneutics, deconstruction, an d philosophical
pragm atism have u n d e rm in e d claims to objectivity, the re d u ctio n o f com plex
w holes to sim ple c o n stitu e n ts, a n d the h ege m o ny of scientific cognition.
W e n e e d d iffe re n t th e o re tic a l tools fo r ca p tu rin g th e special c h ara c te r
o f a e s th e tic a p p re c ia tio n , spec ial even th o u g h it n e e d n o t be u n iq u e o r
u n c o n n e c te d w ith o th e r d o m a in s o f h u m a n cu lture. F u rth e rm o re , w hat is
especially striking ab o u t bo th th e intellectual and technological developm ents
o f o u r own tim e is the e x te n t to w hich the no tio n o f reality has b ee n enlarg ed
a n d m u ltip lie d . H e rm e n e u tic s a n d d e c o n stru c tio n have pro vided gro u n d s
for c o e x iste n t in te rp re ta tio n s, a n d these have g e n e ra ted a plurality o f truths.
F ro m a d i f f e r e n t d i r e c t i o n , p h ilo s o p h ic a l p ra g m a tis m a n d r e l a t e d

th e o r e t ic a l g ro u n d s fo r a m e ta p h y sic s o f m u ltip le re a litie s .9 T h e very

o b je c tiv ity o f b o t h h is to ry a n d sc ie n c e h as b e e n u n d e r m in e d by o u r
re c o g n itio n o f th e con stitutiv e in flu en ce o f social, cu ltu ra l, a n d historical
fo rce s, a n d this has b e g u n to b e cod ified in th e social sciences. Finally,
c o n te m p o ra ry in du strial societies inh abit the virtual w orld o f film, television,

The BritishJournal of Aesthetics,

The British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Sum m er 1986), 195-203.
{J See, in p articu lar, W illiam Jam es, Essays in Radical Empiricism (Lincoln and London:
University o f N ebraska Press, 1996) ; William jam es, A Pluralistic Universe (Lincoln and
L ondon: University of N ebraska Press, 1996); an d ju stu s Buchler, Metaphysics of Natural
Complexes (New York: C olum bia University Press, 1966). 2nd edition (State University
of New York Press, 1990). I have carried aesthetic theory in a sim ilar direction in Art
and Engagement, (Philadelphia: T em ple University Press, 1991).

29
 Arnold Berleant

in c reatio n as a d re a m d re a m in g u s.11
O n e o f the lessons o f p o st-m o dernism , a lesson p o st-m o d e rn ism d id
n o t in v e n t, is th a t c u ltu ra l tra d itio n s a n d so c ia l in flu e n c e s s h a p e o u r
p e rc e p tu a l e x p e rie n c e so th o ro u g h ly th a t th e re is n o su ch th in g as p u re
p e rc ep tio n , a n d th a t to discuss it, even as a th e o re tic a l category, is greatly
m isleading. B ut K antian aesthetics is b u ilt u p o n th e c o n c e p tu a l stru c tu re o f
eigh te en th century psychology th a t considers reason, sense, im ag ination, a n d
feeling as faculties o f the m ind. F o rm ed in th e in te re st o f ra tio n a liz in g a n d
u n iv ersa liz in g kn ow ledge, th e se vastly sim plify th e c o m p le x c o n te x tu a l
c ha ra c te r o f h u m a n ex p erien ce . T o take th e m se pa rately a n d tre a t th e m as
distinct a n d in d e p e n d e n t faculties o r capacities creates divisions th a t we th en
are faced w ith reconciling. T h in k o f th e vast a m o u n t o f a tte n tio n d e v o te d to
d e fe n d in g im agination against re aso n , iso lating u n iq u e a e sth e tic q ualities,
a n d re c o n cilin g expression with form .
T h e conclusion to w hich all this leads, w h e th e r o r n o t it is c o m fo rta b le
o r desirable, is inescapable. T h e id ea o f a ra tio n a l unive rse , o f a n objective,
system atic o rd e r, m u st be re le g a te d to a display case in a m u se u m o f th e
history o f ideas. P hilosophy has c o n stru c te d o p p o sin g forces th a t it is th e n
faced w ith reconciling, a contrived process th a t is rarely successful. W e n e e d
to re -th ink these ideas, n o t w ith th e in te n t o f clarifying th e m by sh a rp e n in g
their differences, b u t exactly the o pposite - by show ing th eir in terp e n e tra tio n ,
th e ir continuity, a n d a t times even th e ir fusion, p e rh a p s w ith th e h o p e o f
achieving a k in d o f Spinozistic u nity th a t sees th e m as asp ects o f a c o m m o n
substance.

A New Direction for Aesthetics

W h at is left o f aesthetics if we tu rn away from th e K a n tian tra d itio n ?

W hat w ould a new aesthetics, a post-K antian aesthetic, loo k like? If we discard
the categories o f faculty psychology - sense, im a g in a tio n , fe eling , m em ory,
reason, taste; if we fo rego th e classical th ru st o f p h ilo so p h y to universalize
a n d dismiss the puzzles over e m o tio n , e xp re ssio n, re p re s e n ta tio n , a n d th e
like th at arise from the fragm entation o f th e w orld o f a rt in to specta tor, artist,
an d w ork o f art; w hat th en is left? If we literally re -th in k aesthetics, w hat k in d
o f in telle ctual c re a tio n will em erg e, w h at k in d o f c re a tu re will b e b o rn ?

10 Welsch, op. cit., p. 86.

11 Lawrence van der Post, The Lost World of the Kalahari (New York: H arco u rt Brace, 1977).

30
 Re-thinking Aesthetics

L et m e take this occasion to suggest a pro g ram fo r th e d ifferent so rt o f

th in k in g th a t I believe m u st gu ide o u r inquiry in aesthe tics in a new a n d
d iffe re n t d irec tio n :
1. R elin qu ish th e substantive categories we have in h e rite d from eig h tee n th
c e n tu ry psychology a n d re pla ce them with adjectival a n d adverbial form s

2. R eplace un iv ersaliz ation w ith a pluralistic ac c o u n t a n d ex plore to w hat

e x te n t th e re a re c e rta in c o m m o n p h e n o m e n a th a t a p p e a r in d iffere nt
artistic a n d a e sth e tic c ultures. F rom this we can le a rn w hat d egrees o f
g e n e r a l it y c a n b e d i s c e r n e d a n d w h e th e r th e s e a re h e lp f u l a n d
illu m in a tin g o r, o n th e c o n tra ry , w h e th e r th ey o b s c u re i m p o r ta n t
d ifferen c e s th a t re q u ire re co g n ition .
3. R e la te d to this, give a p rim a ry place to varying c u ltu ra l tra d itio n s in
aesthetics, a n d to th e o n g o in g histories o f th o u g h t a n d o f experience that
they re flect. N o t only d o th e d iffe ren t arts have th e ir own histories; they
a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d in d i f f e r e n t ways in d if fe r e n t c u ltu ra l tra d itio n s .
E x am in in g th ese will n o t only en c o u rag e a d e gree o f hum ility in bo th
th e s c h o la r a n d th e a p p re c ia to r; a t th e sam e tim e it will e n ric h o u r
capacities fo r a e sth e tic p e rc e p tio n a n d en la rg e its ra n g e a n d co n ten t.
4. Resist th e ten d e n c y o f essentialist th in k in g to identify single forces an d
factors to illu m in a te th e aesth etic process, such as em o tio n , expression,
o r m e a n in g , a n d lo o k in s te a d fo r c o m p le x itie s, fo r c h a ra c te ris tic
g ro u p in g s o f in flu e n c e s , fo r in te rre la tio n s h ip s, fo r a p p ro p ria te a n d
varying co ntexts.
5. C o n sid e r aesthe tic s n o t as th e special d o m a in o f a value sharply distinct
from o th e r kinds o f values, including m oral, practical, social, a nd political
ones, b u t lo o k fo r th e special c o n trib u tio n aesthetic value can m ake to
th e n o rm a tiv e com plexity th a t pervades a n d is in sep arable from every
re g io n o f th e h u m a n re alm . A esthetic value can b e distinctive w itho ut
b e in g s e p a ra te , u n iq u e ly va luable w ith o u t b e in g sin g u la r, im p o rta n t
w ith o u t b e in g p u re , a n d occupy a critical place in h u m a n culture w ithout
b e in g isolated.
6. D evelop th e g ro u n d s fo r an aesthetic-based criticism , n o t only o f the arts
b u t o f c u l t u r e a n d k n o w le d g e , fo r th e s e to o h a v e t h e ir a e s th e tic
d im en sio n s. S uch criticism sh ou ld be d ire c te d n o t only at th eir c o n te n t
b u t, even m o re im p o rta n t, tow ard th e ir p resup po sition s.
N o w h e re is criticism m o re n ee d e d , how ever, than o f aesthetic theory
itself. F o r p h ilo s o p h ic a l in flu e n c e s o n th e o ry have c o m e , n o t fro m an
inv estigation o f a e sth e tic sensibility, b u t largely from th e ontological an d

31
 Arnold Berleant

epistem ological fram ew ork o f the W estern p hilo soph ical trad itio n th a t moves
from classical sources, th ro u g h its a p p ro p ria tio n by E n lig h te n m e n t th inkers,
into the pre sen t. It is a tra dition th a t has e x to lle d co n te m p la tiv e re a so n a n d
has b e e n suspicious o f th e body a n d th e full ra n g e o f h u m a n sensibility. As
a c o n s e q u e n c e , we a re p r e s e n te d w ith a n a rra y o f issu e s t h a t h a v e a
philosophical ra th e r th a n an aesthetic source. A m o ng these we can cite such
divisive o pp ositions as those betw een surface (as in a e sth etic q u alitie s) a n d
substance, form a n d c o n te n t, illusion a n d reality, sp e c ta to r a n d w o rk o f a rt
(th a t is, su b je c t a n d o b je c t), a n d b e a u ty a n d u se ( th a t is, in trin s ic a n d
in stru m e n ta l values). T h ese have a ssum ed o n to lo g ic a l status a n d m isd ire c t
aesthetic inq uiry in a fragm entary a n d o p p o sitio n a l d ire c tio n . All o f th ese
derive from the u n d u e influenc e o f this p h ilo so p h ic a l tra d itio n o n a esth e tic
theory, in p a rtic u la r from its cognitive m o del.

Aesthetic Engagement, an Aesthetics of Context and Continuity

My own view favors a pluralistic ae sthetic th a t allows for th e fullest ra n g e

o f creative m aking in all th e h u m a n arts a n d in all th e ir diverse c u ltu ra l
m anifestations. W e n e e d n o t be so c o n c e rn e d w ith h iera rch y , w ith invidious
rankings, b u t ra th e r w ith studying how th e se arts fu n c tio n in society a n d in
e x p e rie n c e - w h a t n e e d s th ey fu lfill, w h a t p u r p o s e s th e y se rv e , w h a t
satisfactions they offer, a n d how they e x te n d h u m a n capacities to perceive
a nd u n d e rsta n d . Such an aesthetic, m oreo v e r, e x te n d s b ey o n d th e arts to
th e w o rld in w h ic h we live, to th e n a t u r a l e n v ir o n m e n t, to th e b u i l t
e nv iro n m e n t, to com m unity, to p e rso n a l re la tio n s. T hese , n e g le c te d u n til
recently, b eg for scholarly a n d scientific a tte n tio n so th a t they can a d d n o t
only to th e ra n g e o f kno w ledg e b u t so th a t th e y c a n clarify a n d e n la rg e
regions o f e x p e rien c e o ften u n a tte n d e d to a n d h id d e n .
S uch a n aesthetic sensibility, o n e th a t re co g n izes its in te g ra tio n in th e
life o f h u m a n cultures, is an aesthetics o f co n te x t a n d continuity. N o t set a p a rt
in g ra n d b u t lonely isolation, the aesthe tic d o m a in o f e x p e rie n ce infuses th e
m any a n d varied activities in w hich we e n ga g e , fro m daily tasks to p o p u la r
culture. It also re ta ins its significance fo r th ose arts th a t focus o n a n d distill
the m ost in te n se a n d p ro fo u n d m o m e n ts o f e x p e rie n c e , th e so-called fine
arts. B u t th ese, too, in flu e n c e a n d e n t e r in to th e w ide ra n g e o f h u m a n
e xp erien ce . We m ust s u rre n d e r th e m yth o f p u rity a lo n g w ith th e m yth o f
exclusivity.

the co nn e ctio n s o f aesthetic e x p e rie n c e b u t invites o u r total inv o lv em en t as

32
 Re-thinking Aesthetics

active p a rtic ip a n ts. A esthetic e n g a g e m e n t is m o re a descriptive th eo ry th an

a p re scrip tiv e on e: It reflects th e activity o f the artist, th e p e rfo rm er, a n d
th e a p p re c ia to r as th ese c o m b in e in aesthetic exp e rien ce . A nd it is a theory
t h a t re fle c ts th e w o rld we p a rtic ip a te in, n o t th e illu so ry s p le n d o r o f a
p h ilo so p h ic a l fantasy.

I re alize th a t th e se a re iconoclastic prop osals an d th a t they cha lle ng e

m any o f the stro n g est sup po rts a n d firm est convictions o f m o d e rn aesthetics.
B u t w h e th e r o r n o t you a g re e w ith m e, I h o p e you will take these proposals
as a n in cen tiv e to re c o n s id e r th e axiom s o f aesthetics, a n d w ork to sh ape
th e o r y to th e fa c ts o f a r t a n d e x p e rie n c e . T o b e g in th is p ro c e s s , n o
o p p o rtu n ity is b e tte r th a n th ese days in Ljubljana. Bonne chance!v2

121 have developed aspects o f this critique in many places. These include: Living in the
Landscape: Toward an Aesthetics of Environment (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas,
1997); The Aesthetic Field: A Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience (Springfield, 111.: C. C.
T hom as, 1970); in Art and Engagement, and in a n u m ber of recen t papers.