The American Society For Aesthetics, Wiley The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

Aesthetics as Science: Its Development in America
Author(s): Thomas Munro

Source: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Mar., 1951), pp. 161-207
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The American Society for Aesthetics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/425882
Accessed: 13-04-2016 06:05 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/425882?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The American Society for Aesthetics, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
This content downloaded from 194.27.18.18 on Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:05:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
VOL. IX MARCH, 1951 NO3.
THE JOURNAL OF
AESTHETICS & ART CRITICISM
AESTHETICS AS SCIENCE: ITS DEVELOPMENT IN AMERICA*
THOMAS MUNRO
1. Internationalism.
During the last few years, even under war conditions, there has been a nota-
ble growth of interest in aesthetics in the United States. One indication of this
is the establishment in 1941 of the Journal of Aesthetics, and of the American
Society for Aesthetics in the following year. College courses and published
articles in the field are increasing in numbers. But unsettled conditions, at
home and abroad, are slowing the advance. High printing costs obstruct the
publication of scholarly books and magazines, and college students are under
strong pressure to study practical, vocational subjects.
In spite of these obstacles, leaders in various countries are reviving com-
munication, and making aesthetics once more an international subject. Im-
portant publications in each country are noted elsewhere, and international
meetings are again being held. A new generation of American scholars is taking
an active part in the revival of aesthetics on a world scale. Cooperation is es-
pecially active between the American and French groups, now that the latter
has revived its own Societ6 d'Esth6tique, and begun publication of its Revue
d'Esth~tique.
The past leadership of Germany in aesthetics was outstanding, from the
first recognition of the subject as a branch of philosophy in the early 18th century,
down almost to 1939. It was ably carried on by such contemporary figures as
Max Dessoir, Emil Utitz, and Richard Mfiller-Freienfels, in the rich pages of the
Zeitschrift fur Asthetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft, and in an output of
books and articles on the subject which overshadowed that of all other countries
put together. Under these twentieth-century leaders, a series of international
congresses on aesthetics was held in Germany and France, including one in
* Part of this article was published under the title "Present Tendencies in American
Esthetics" in the volume of essays entitled Philosophic Thought in France and the United
States, edited by Marvin Farber and published in 1950 by the University of Buffalo, Buffalo,
New York. This volume provides the basis for a detailed comparison between French and
American philosophy. Thanks are extended to Professor Farber and the publishers for
permission to print the complete article herewith. I have added a few incidental compari-
sons between American and French aesthetics; also some bibliographical notes. These are
merely illustrative and not intended as a selection of the most important writings in either
language. Professor Farber's volume (which appeared also in a French edition) contains
a valuable article by Raymond Bayer of the Sorbonne on "Recent Esthetic Thought in
France," and critical notes by Andr6 Lalande on the portion of my article which appeared
in the book. I recommend the entire volume, comparing present French and American
philosophy in detail, to readers of the present article. The book was reviewed in this Journal
for September 1950, p. 60, by Campbell Crockett.
161
162 THOMAS MUNRO
Paris in 1937. Since the recent war, the leadership has passed to France and the
United States. There has been little activity in aesthetics in the British Isles
since World War II, in spite of some excellent work in collateral fields.
In the United States, the subject is still at a rudimentary stage of develop-
ment, by comparison with prewar Germany and with other branches of philoso-
phy in America.' We have produced some important writings on the philosophy
of art from Emerson to Dewey, but with little continuity in research or discus-
sion. No American university has taught it long and steadily, so as to build up
a cumulative tradition of interest and achievement. It is usually taught, if at
all, as an advanced elective course in the philosophy department; less often in
the fine arts, music, English, or psychology department, by some teacher who
happens to be interested in theory. But it is seldom regarded as necessary, even
in a liberal, humanistic curriculum.
Isolationism is slowly giving way to extensive cooperation in aesthetics and
related fields. But American writers still tend to quote chiefly from other Ameri-
cans, while the English quote English sources, the French quote French ones,
and the Germans those in their own language. Reading books on aesthetics
from any of these countries, one is led to imagine a separate line of succession
there, owing little to outside influence; its own writers always leading the way.
This is partly due to national pride; partly to lack of facilities for quick transla-
tion and exchange of ideas.
Complacent isolationism exists also in each specialized branch of scholarship
in the arts. The literary critics have their own little cliques for mutual admira-
tion and quotation, each discussing the other's latest essay as if it were vastly
important and original, requiring only one or two small corrections. Thus each
new generation of sophisticated critics, many of them unfamiliar with philo-
sophical aesthetics, revives in slightly altered wording the ancient perennial
arguments about standards of value, as if they had discovered something radically
new. As in the so-called "New Criticism" of literature, proud claims to origi-
nality are made with slight justification.2 In science, a new demonstration or
discovery is quickly made common property, and used as a starting-point by
later scientists. In aesthetics and criticism, one cannot hope that yesterday's
conclusions will be accepted as final. But there is unnecessary waste of effort
and lack of cumulative progress, when important work in each generation is
almost ignored by the next, and its unfinished researches dropped in the scramble
to appear up-to-date and to quote only the newest, most fashionable authorities.
Recent French and German writings on aesthetics and related subjects have
been little read in the United States.3 A reading knowledge of French and German
has been none too common among our college graduates and artists. The influence
1 Munro, T., "Aesthetics and Philosophy in American Colleges," JAAC (Journal of
Aesthetics and Art Criticism), Vol. IV, No. 3, March 1946, pp. 180-186.
2 "The New Criticism is a very old criticism . . . explication du texte," (Malcolm Cowley
in "The New Criticism," American Scholar, Winter 1950-51, p. 88).
3 For an introduction to recent French aesthetics, see the special issue of this Journal
for June 1949, with articles by Lalo, Souriau, Bayer, Rudrauf, and others, in addition to
biographical and bibliographical notes.
AESTHETICS AS SCIENCE: ITS DEVELOPMENT IN AMERICA 163
of German aesthetics has reached us largely by way of foreign intermediaries.

From Coleridge to Bosanquet and Carritt, we have received from England
thinned-out versions of German transcendentalism as applied to aesthetics.
Ainslie's translation in 1909 of Croce's Aesthetic, an Italian adaptation of He-
gelianism, has influenced our intellectuals more than the vigorous Hegel himself
has done. Its pompous obscurantism toward naturalistic aesthetics has done
much to discourage and delay the latter's rise in this country. In the late 19th
century, aspiring young American philosophers went to German universities
if they could, but after 1900 the stream of pilgrims gradually tapered off to the
vanishing point. In. consequence, contemporary German philosophers were less
read here, although the German classics, especially Kant and Schopenhauer,
were still studied in translation. Only a few highly publicized writers, such as
Freud, Jung, and Spengler, had much direct influence. Only a few young Ameri-
cans went to Germany or Austria to study art history.
Hitler's rise to power in the early thirties sent to the United States, as previous
waves of oppression in Europe had done, a flood of German-speaking scholars
in exile. The result has been a new stream of influence from recent German,
Austrian, and Swiss aesthetics, art history, psychology, musicology, and art
education. Comparatively little of the great mass of valuable German writings
in these fields, especially during the twenties, has yet been translated. (Wdlfflin's
Principles of Art History appeared in English in 1932; hardly any of the writings
of Dessoir, Utitz, Mtiller-Freienfels, or other contemporary German aestheti-
cians have yet been translated.) Much American work in these fields is still
done in blithe ignorance of the fact that European scholars have gone over the
same ground, and could save us a good deal of trouble. But a large number of
German scholars are now publishing in English, and teaching in our universities.
The present growth of aesthetics in America is being stimulated by this influx
of learned emigres, especially in the history of the arts. They bring us, not only
their own individual talents and ideas, but a delayed appreciation of the ad-
vances made in German-speaking countries since 1918, in all the fields contrib-
uting to aesthetics.
More fundamentally, however, the American development has been a slow
maturing of certain tendencies within American culture itself, which parallel to
some extent those of Europe. We are the direct heirs of the long British tradition
in the philosophy and psychology of art. It has been, on the whole, one of natu-
ralism and empiricism from Bacon and Hobbes4 to Santayana; one of evolution,
democracy, and liberalism from Herbert Spencer to John Dewey. Adverse
theorists have attempted to discredit this tradition by identifying it with a few
outworn ideas, such as Schiller's "play theory" of art, and with a narrow, sensual
type of hedonism. These survivals of romanticism, and of the aristocratic con-
ception of art for leisurely enjoyment, are not essential to the British naturalistic,
evolutionary tradition in aesthetics. Its lasting value has been along other lines;
for example, in leading to recent psychological and ethnological studies of art
in various cultures.
4Thorpe, C. D., The Aesthetic Theory of Thomas Hobbes, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1940.
164 THOMAS MUNRO
Working in this philosophical tradition, the author of the present essay pro-
posed in 19285 a scientific, descriptive, naturalistic approach to aesthetics; one
which should be broadly experimental and empirical, but not limited to quanti-
tative measurement; utilizing the insights of art criticism and philosophy as
hypotheses, but deriving objective data from two main sources-the analysis
and history of form in the arts, and psychological studies of the production,
appreciation, and teaching of the arts. An empirical, relativistic approach to
aesthetic valuation and value standards was also outlined. The analysis of form
was broadly conceived, not as limited to the mere skeleton or external shell of
the work of art, but as covering the organization of suggested meanings, emo-
tions, and other components.
In 1928, the time was not yet ripe for concerted action along such lines in the
United States; it had to wait another fourteen years.6 Several writers had already
attempted, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, to establish
aesthetics as an important subject in American scholarship. William Knight's
Philosophy of the Beautiful, a history of aesthetics published by a Scottish writer
in 1891-93, found much of interest in American writings on the subject from
1815 down to Ladd, Scott, Gayley, and the youthful John Dewey. Santayana's
Sense of Beauty was a notable step toward a naturalistic, psychological orienta-
tion in 1896; it still retains considerable vitality. Max Dessoir presented a
forward-looking paper on the "science of art" and its problems in St. Louis in
1904.7 It has been almost completely ignored. Hugo Minsterberg made valiant
efforts, in the early 1900's, to introduce German ideas on the psychology and
teaching of art. They came to grief in 1914. Each similar attempt has suffered
a setback, in part through wars and depressions; in part because conditions had
not yet produced a widespread intellectual need for aesthetics in this country.
That need is now arising, because of events to be described in the next section.
Before long, the history of aesthetics will have to be completely rewritten
from a much more cosmopolitan point of view. It will have to include a great
deal of important art criticism and aesthetic psychology, hitherto ignored in
histories of criticism. Instead of following a single line of apostolic succession
from Plato through Kant and Hegel to Croce and Bosanquet, it will have to
consider much wise theorizing about the arts from China,8 India,9 Japan,'0 the
6 Munro, T., Scientific Method in Aesthetics, New York, 1928.

6 Date of organization, in Washington, D. C., of the American Society for Aesthetics.
Preliminary conferences were reported in The Future of Aesthetics: a Symposium on Possible
Ways of Advancing Theoretical Studies of the Arts and Related Types of Experience, ed. by
T. Munro, Clevelar d, Ohio, 1942. See review by J. Alford, Art Bulletin, September 1945.
7 Dessoir, M., "The Fundamental Questions of Aesthetics" (tr. by Ethel Puffer). Con-
gress of Arts and Science, Universal Exposition, St. Louis 1904. Boston 1905, pp. 434-447.
Dessoir here credits Hugo Spitzer with beginning the scientific approach. See also Dessoir's
"Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art in Contemporary Germany," Monist, Vol. 36, 1926,
pp. 299-310.
8 E.g., translations by S. Sakanishi of Kuo Hsi, An Essay on Landscape Painting and
The Spirit of the Brush, London 1935, 1939. Siren, O., The Chinese on the Art of Painting,
Peiping 1936.
9 Haas, G. C. 0. (tr.), Dhanamjaya's Dasarupa: a Treatise on Hindu Dramaturgy, New
Near East, Russia, and other cultures besides our own. Knight's Philosophy of
the Beautiful, in 1891, was much more international in scope than either of the
two large histories of aesthetics which have appeared in English since then. It
contained chapters on the beginnings of aesthetics in prehistoric and Egyptian
culture; on the classical and medieval periods; and on modern aesthetics in
Germany, France, Italy, Holland, Britain, America, Russia, and Denmark. By
contrast, Bosanquet's History of Aesthetic, which appeared in London in 1892
and has been scarcely altered since, is narrow and biassed ignoring not only
American contributions but almost everything outside the German transcenden-
talist tradition which Bosanquet admired. Dull and stodgy in treatment, it
persistently omits the vital, stimulating, and colorful aspects of its subject-
matter, the discerning comments of great writers on art and artists, to plod
through the endless course of pedantic speculation about the nature of Beauty.
For the past five decades it has served as a wet blanket, to dampen the interest
of students in aesthetics.
In view of all that had happened since 1892, there was even less excuse in
1939 for Gilbert and Kuhn's History of Esthetic to neglect or misrepresent
American contributions to the field and all attempts at scientific method in
aesthetics. Strongly German and anti-scientific in bias, it condescendingly
dismisses not only American but French and British writings in the evolutionary,
naturalistic tradition (e.g., Herbert Spencer and Grant Allen) with a few com-
pletely inadequate sentences. Santayana and Dewey together are given a total
of four lines (p. 554). Prall gets six words as a mere follower of the German
formalists. Lalo, DeWitt Parker, Dessoir, Basch, and Delacroix are disposed of
together in four and a half lines (p. 554). Dessoir and the whole "general science
of art" movement receive another four lines on page 527. Utitz and Miller-
Freienfels are not mentioned. Thus even German writers unsympathetic to the
authors' point of view are neglected, in spite of world-wide recognition else-
where. Obviously, the history of aesthetics has still to be written, with due
consideration of different schools of thought, and of different national contribu-
tions.
In spite of obstacles, aesthetics as a whole is steadily becoming more inter-
national in scope. It has never been pervaded by narrow chauvinism or blindly
worshipful patriotism. Its leaders have been, on the whole, philosophers with a
broadly humanistic attitude. The few exceptions, as in certain 'Nazi and Soviet
pronouncements on art, are taken seriously only as examples of political propa-
ganda. But one could easily cite examples of leading art historians and philoso-
phers of history, whose racial and national pride has led them to exaggerate
the importance of their own cultural background. If they were Germans, it has
led them to regard all Gothic culture, or all modern western, "Faustian" culture,
as somehow peculiarly German in spirit. There have been Italian scholars, so
York 1912. Coomaraswamy, A., The Mirror of Gesture, New York 1936. Mukerjee, R., The
Social Function of Art, Bombay 1948.
"I Okakura, K., The Book of Tea. Anesaki, 'I., Art, Life, and Nature in Japan, Boston
1932. Binyon, L., The Flight of the Dragon, London 1911.
166 THOMAS MUNRO
dazzled by the wealth and beauty of their own culture, with its roots in the
classical past, as to ignore or minimize others. Such bias can produce a distorted
view of art history and world civilization, in which one's own spiritual ancestors
are constantly brought to the center of the stage.
All aesthetic theory before the late nineteenth century was cramped and
distorted by ignorance of exotic and primitive styles of art. In Renaissance
humanism and by Winckelmann, it was based largely on the late Greek and
Roman traditions in visual art and literature, and on the Renaissance styles
which carried them on. Hegel regarded the art of advanced oriental civiliza-
tions condescendingly and superficially. Theories of the ideal and beautiful in
art were founded mainly on late Greek principles of naturalistic representation,
balance, and proportion. Gothic art was imitated at times, but was on the whole
compared unfavorably with the classic. While there was so little to compete
with classical art for admiration, one could easily erect it into an absolute norm
of all that was good and beautiful; one could interpret all art history as a process
of groping ascent from the "crude ugliness" of tribal and archaic art to the
pinnacle of neo-classic refinement.
The enlargement of cultural horizons in the late nineteenth and twentieth
centuries has produced a revolutionary effect on recent aesthetics, making it
not only international but intercultural in scope. The data for its generaliza-
tions are coming to be drawn from the artistic products and experiences of all
peoples. We are rapidly losing the complacent assumption that western styles
of art are necessarily the best in all respects. In interpreting these data-for
example, the significance of a Hindu statue-we are learning not to judge every-
thing through modern western eyes, but to understand what the statue meant
to the culture which made it."1
One effect, inevitably, is to make aesthetic theory more relativistic. It seems
more and more unreasonable to appraise the tremendous variety of styles by
any one simple rule or fixed standard. More and more styles of art, which do
not conform to strict neoclassical rules, are becoming accepted by critics,
historians, art museums, and the public. It seems increasingly evident that
each great historic style of art, however strange and repellent it may seem at
first to untrained western eyes, had its own functions and values-perhaps its
own type of beauty-in its own cultural setting. Perhaps all these types of
aesthetic value can be reduced to some one formula; if so, it will have to be an
extremely broad and flexible one. For the present, there is more interest in
observing and describing the infinite variety of ways in which art can be pro-
duced, used, regarded, and evaluated in different cultures.
It is interesting to compare the United States with France as to the relations
between nationalism and internationalism. In some ways, France is highly
cosmopolitan. As the capital of a colonial empire, and as the world's traditional
artistic capital, Paris has long been a center for exotic arts and customs; a
meeting-place of foreign artists and intellectuals. The Mus6e Guimet presents
11 As in A. Coomaraswamy's The Dance of Siva, New York 1924; Elements of Buddhist
Iconography, Cambridge, Mass. 1935; H. Zimmer, Myths and Symbols in Indian Art and
Civilization, New York 1946.
and interprets oriental art; the Musee de l'Homme, a variety of primitive

cultures. Exotic dance and music programs, special exhibits, translations into
French from every tongue, abound in Paris. The population of the United States
is more heterogeneous racially, but its immigrant groups, coming mainly from
underprivileged levels, have not always brought much of their native cultural
riches with them. Too often they are quick to abandon what little they brought,
and to imitate American ways. It is largely through other avenues of importa-
tion, on higher socio-economic levels, that America is becoming culturally
cosmopolitan. Our elite groups, who patronize and influence the arts, are on
the whole extremely receptive toward foreign novelties; all too ready to believe
the foreign product better than their own; to admire each new imported style
and praise the American artist when he imitates them. We eagerly import foreign
scientific and philosophical movements, such as Freudian and Gestalt psychology,
phenomenology, and logical positivism.
France, on the other hand, has a deeply ingrained confidence in the superi-
ority of French art and philosophy. It accepts occasional contributions from
abroad, always grafting them upon the native French tradition and domesticating
them-as in the use by Matisse of certain traits from Persian painting. The
French educational system is strongly centralized, rather inflexible, and strongly
nationalistic, ever holding up the glories of the grand siecle to French youth.
With Descartes and Pascal still glorified as examples of what philosophy should
be today, it is hard for the French philosopher to escape old grooves of thought,
and to attack twentieth-century problems in a twentieth-century way. The
main current of French university philosophy, conservatively dualistic or ideal-
istic, has paid little attention to the Freudian revolution in psychology or to
the new emphasis on cultural psychology, derived from anthropological analysis
of different culture patterns. Both of these are strongly influential in present
American thought and especially in aesthetics. The conception that all philo-
sophical beliefs, all artistic styles and value standards, all modes of thought
and imagination are relative to human nature and are culturally conditioned;
that none is absolutely right or final, is hard to grasp in a country where one
great national philosophy has persistently striven, with considerable success,
to reconcile in the public mind the march of scientific progress with the essen-
tials of medieval Christianity. With no such awe-inspiring national heritage to
boast of in American art and philosophy, the American thinker is perhaps more
free to select from all traditions, to develop new patterns of culture. Only the
future can show which background is more favorable to continued artistic
and intellectual growth.
2. Growth of the arts and related activities in A4merica.
In most European centers of learning, where aesthetics has been written and
taught, great works of art have long been present. They surround the university
student at Rome, Florence, Paris, London, Vienna, Munich, and Berlin. If he
does not base his aesthetic theories on first-hand observation of great architec-
ture, sculpture, painting, music, and theater, it is not for lack of opportunity.
The art around him is sometimes limited in range of styles; for example, in
Italy, where there is little oriental or primitive art to be seen. One's generaliza-
168 THOMAS MUNRO
tions may suffer accordingly; but at least a few important examples are at
hand for direct study. Not only finished works of art are there, but living artists
in every medium. Art is, and has been for centuries, a vital activity, by which
people earn their living. The practice, enjoyment, and discussion of art have
long been taken seriously as a valuable part of community life. All this provides
an excellent foundation for aesthetic theory.
In America, most of the fine arts have been on a small scale until recent
decades. The American artist in a visual medium had little opportunity to see
great works of art in his own field, except through an occasional trip to Europe,
or in mediocre reproductions. Writers were much less cut off from the great
traditions in their craft; Whitman could read the King James Bible. Even music
scores could be easily imported, though orchestras were few. Today, though the
fine arts are not yet part of the American scene as they are of the European, a
tremendous advance has been made. Museums have multiplied in American
cities, even the smaller ones, and stocked themselves with the world's treasures,
expertly selected and exhibited, so as to astonish the foreign visitor. Motion
picture films, radio, and television bring us music and drama (good and bad in
quality), along with colorful scenes of foreign architecture, costume, and cere-
monial. Books, public libraries, illustrated magazines, bring us literature for
every taste and age-level, with photographic reproductions of the world's art.
We design gardens, watch ballets, join amateur dance or handicraft clubs.
Mass production brings good copies of museum pieces of furniture, pottery, and
painting into modest homes. We are producing some original art, as in the film
and architecture; how much or how good, it is hard for us to say. But all the
principal arts of western civilization are now active here; their products are
available for everyone to enjoy and study. We spend enormous sums on them,
and multitudes of people make a living from them. As a result, the American
critic, historian, and philosopher can now find concrete materials at hand for
researches into the nature of art and artists. For the first time, aesthetics and
art history can be studied in America, not in a purely bookish way, but through
direct observation of a wide range of original works of art.
One accompaniment of the growth of art in America has been the growth of
art education;'2 of instruction in all the arts, both in formal schools and courses,
and in popular articles and lectures. These follow several different lines of ap-
proach. One emphasizes technical training in the practice of the arts; learning
to be an artist. This includes all manner of schools, courses, and treatises in-
tended to help one become a creative painter, sculptor, designer, architect,
short story writer, playwright, actor, composer, or performer of music. Another
type of education emphasizes the appreciation, enjoyment, and understanding
of the arts. To satisfy this demand, museums establish gallery talks, courses,
and public lectures; in print and over the radio, critics explain current tend-
encies in the arts. A third type emphasizes history and chronological develop-
ment; the characteristics of art in successive periods, and the contribution of
individual artists, writers, or composers. Systematic study of this type reaches
12 Whipple, G. (ed.) Art in American Life and Education: 40th Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education, Bloomington, Ill. 1941.
a comparatively small audience, mainly on the college level. Still another type
emphasizes educational methods; it seeks to prepare teachers of a certain art.
Ordinarily, such a course of study includes the philosophy and psychology of
education, classroom management, and a little about the school curriculum on
various levels, in addition to the practice and history of the art concerned. The
training of a prospective college instructor usually differs from one on the
secondary level, in bringing in more history of the art and less educational
method. It differs from that of an artist, in having less intensive training in the
technical use of the medium.
3. Specialization and synthesis.
All these various approaches to the arts tend to be highly specialized in
America today, and on the whole, increasingly so. Above the early, elementary
level, the arts are divided into separate courses and departments, with little
cooperation between "art" (i.e., the visual arts), music, and literature. Literature
is minutely subdivided according to language, nationality, and period, with
little study of comparative literature aside from introductory courses on "world
masterpieces." Specialization is least on the lowest grades of school, where one
teacher often teaches all subjects. It is increasingly sharp from junior high
school onward, where rigid departmentalization occurs. It is often extreme on
the college and post-graduate levels, where the idea persists that one cannot be
genuinely scholarly without narrowing down his interests, not only to a single
subject such as the English novel, but to some narrow chronological and geo-
graphical subdivision within it. Advanced students are persistently discouraged,
by the regulations for degrees and by faculty advisers, from trying to study the
arts in a broad, comprehensive way, in relation to philosophy, psychology, so-
ciology, and other subjects which might throw light upon them.
Most theoretical discussion of art is still limited by our compartmental system
to a single art. This is true not only of education but of criticism, on both schol-
arly and journalistic levels. Music is considered by itself, theater by itself,
painting by itself, and literature by itself. The results are often expert, and
significant volumes on the aesthetics, psychology, or formal structure of a
particular art are produced.'3 There are many advantages in such limits, but
no art can be thoroughly understood in isolation. By seeing how they interact
in every period, and how all spring from the same human nature, the same
social settings, we can see more clearly the distinctive features of each. When
the theory of each art proceeds along a separate line, ignoring the rest, it tends
to develop its own jargon, its own inbred provinciality. This may go on for
generations without ever approaching a philosophic conception of the arts.
In some ways, the French educational system is even more deeply and rigidly
specialized than ours, with ancient walls dividing it into compartments. There is
little art or music in the liberal arts curriculum, even on the lower levels, and
that little tends to be stiffly conventional. The idea of giving all students a basic
13 Pratt, C. C., The Meaning of Music, New York 1931. Mursell, J. L., The Psychology of
Music, New York 1937. Haydon, G., Introduction to Musicology, New York 1946. Dudley, L.,
The Study of Literature, Boston 1928. Wellek, R., and Warren, A., Theory of Literature.
New York 1942. Daiches, D., A Study of Literature, Ithaca 1948.
170 THOMAS MUNRO
acquaintance with the arts as part of a general education is scarcely discussed

as yet. To study visual art or music, a student must concentrate early and
intensively upon it, with little chance to study psychology or social science-all
necessary for modern aesthetics. It is hard for him to change from one field to
another. By contrast, the American system is much more flexible and experi-
mental. Many institutions on all levels are trying new ways to interrelate the
arts with other phases of general education. But it must always be remembered
that the French student, especially in Paris, is less dependent on formal school-
ing for his aesthetic education: its materials are everywhere about him.
French education also has the admirable requirement of an introductory
course in philosophy for most students on the secondary level. It is not quite
satisfactory to any school of thought, as to method and content. It is often
taught with individual bias-Catholic, Marxist, or "Liberal." But it is fairly
neutral and humanistic; it awakens the intelligent student, at an impressionable
age, to the possibility of asking profound, far-reaching questions about life
and the world. It shows the possibility of different answers, and invites him to
attempt his own. Aesthetics is usually included; hence he learns at least that the
subject exists. In training teachers of philosophy, still more attention is given
to aesthetics. American public education, partly through fear of offending
various religious groups, is sadly lacking in philosophical instruction. Hence
most students lack this early impetus toward profound, unifying reflection on
life, including its aesthetic phases. Even advanced American researchers in
science and scholarship tend to lack philosophic depth and organizing power;
to particularize excessively; to fear and neglect the task of large-scale integra-
tion.
The recent wave of specialization in studies of the arts is but one phase of a
greater specializing trend which has swept through modern philosophy itself,
as well as through aesthetics. Philosophy since the eighteenth century, especially
in England, has specialized so narrowly on the problems of knowledge and
truth in epistemology and logic, that some texts (e.g., Bertrand Russell's The
Problems of Philosophy) give the impression that there are no other philosoph-
ical problems.
Increasing specialization has been one of the dominant trends in art itself,
during the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. For example, the painting
of the late Renaissance masters was many-sided, appealing through both visual
design and subject matter. It portrayed vast scenes of noble, mythological, or
Biblical life, full of human interest; its-visual effects were also vast and complex,
through a synthesis of rhythmic line, color, mass, deep space, atmosphere,
texture-nearly all of the painter's resources. Since then, there has been a
tendency to specialize on visual form at the sacrifice of represented subject-
matter; and even to exploit one or a few visual components by themselves.
This appears to an extreme in Picasso, who changes frequently from one avenue
of experimentation to another: now to line alone, with no solid masses; now to
bulky masses with no color; now to flat color pattern with no shading; now to
abstract visual design; now to strong emotional expression, as in the "Guernica."
This trend still dominates among individual artists; there are no Wagners today.
But there are some opposing, reintegrative trends, as in the sound-color-film,

in the lyric theater with ballet, and in the new cooperation between design and
utility, decoration and function, in the industrial arts.
Specialization has its obvious values, as a means to intensive research and
experiment in both art and science. But it has to be supplemented by the inte-
grative phase of thought and action, for balanced development. Protests and
counter-measures against excessive educational specialization have not been
lacking.14 Devices have been worked out for reintegrating the arts with each
other and with the rest of the curriculum; for helping the student to realize
how the arts are basically connected as parts of human life. One such device is
the "project method," much practiced in the lower grades, and to a less extent
in secondary schools. It often takes the form of a theatrical production by
groups of students, involving the preparation of a script based on some historical
or literary subject which is being studied. In addition, it may involve the design-
ing and making of costumes and scenery, the composition and performance of
music and dancing, and stage direction by students under faculty guidance.
Most school projects, of course, are much simpler and more limited in diversity
of mediums. Another counter-measure against educational specialization has
been the "orientation course," or broad survey course on the humanities, the
arts in modern life, contemporary civilization, or a topic of similar breadth.
Such courses are always difficult to organize and teach, especially when they
must be taught by specialists from different departments of the faculty; one
section of the course being given by the music department, another by the art
department, and so on.
Another difficulty in organizing orientation courses on the arts is the lack of
any accepted theoretical basis for them. Even on the level of advanced theory,
the relations between the arts have not been much discussed in this country.
It is therefore doubly hard for teachers to agree on any way of presenting them
in a comprehensive, systematic way on an introductory level. There is urgent
need at present, in American education, for a workable philosophy of art, and
for theoretical guidance in developing the arts as a part of liberal education for all
age-levels.
The recent growth of interest in comparative aesthetics is partly due to a
widespread belief, among teachers and students of the arts, that specialization
has gone too far. Aesthetics is traditionally supposed to give a comprehensive,
philosophical interpretation of the arts; hence persons from all walks of life
are turning to it for enlightenment. Philosophers, they assume, ought to have
something profoundly illuminating to say on this as on other matters.
Unfortunately, these flattering expectations are too often disappointed. There
has always been, and still is, a great gulf between philosophical aesthetics
and the arts themselves. A person may study the former for years in an American
philosophy department, without having to examine a single work of art. As
in Europe, aesthetics here has usually emphasized highly general problems con-
14Balet, L., "The History of Art of the Future," JAAC, Fall 1941, pp. 42-62. Winternitz,
E., "Overspecialization and Art Education," Assn. of American Colleges Bulletin, Vol.
XXVIII, No. 2, May 1942, pp. 276-282.
172 THOMAS MUNRO
cerning the nature of art, beauty, and aesthetic value. Aesthetics of this narrow,
traditional sort has always failed to interest many college students, or to satisfy
the inquiring layman. They find in it, not a unifying approach to the arts, but
another highly specialized little subject, off in a corner by itself, devoted to
endless debate over small technicalities.
To be sure, there is room in aesthetics for intensive researches as well as
general syntheses. But the latter are most urgently needed at present, in liberal
education and by the general public. They are needed especially in the English-
speaking countries, because of the extreme pluralism and disunity of our intel-
lectual life. Reacting against grandiose aesthetic systems of the German type,
we have gone to the opposite extreme, avoiding even that minimum of broadly
systematic thinking which is essential to a rational world view, and which has
been philosophy's distinctive contribution in the past. In a period of rapid
cultural change and mixture, when science is discovering particular facts at
unparalleled speed, there is urgent need for the large-scale, organizing phase
of philosophic thinking.
Much that passes for philosophy today, and that is written by professional
philosophers, does not deserve the name because of its minute specialization.
It should be classed rather as science or historical scholarship. There is need
for intensive, semantic researches on the meanings of "beauty," but these are
not a substitute for the vitally needed, comprehensive interpretation of the
arts. One school of philosophy in American universities is now attempting an
approach to aesthetics in terms of semantics and semiotics.'5 So far, it has been
narrowly preoccupied with a few selected aspects of art: especially its relation
to other kinds of symbol, sign, and meaning. Important conclusions may emerge.
But obviously, this so-called "philosophical" approach is only one more highly
specialized inquiry, concerned with certain abstract characteristics of thought
and communication. It makes no attempt to deal philosophically with the
whole realm of art and aesthetic experience, or with the central, distinctive
problems arising therein.
In the twentieth century, Santayana is the only American philosopher who
has produced any approach to a full-scale philosophic system with a place for
the arts, and he has written little about them since Reason in Art appeared in
1905. Literature is the only art about which he has written with assurance.
Dewey, our other front-rank philosopher, has consciously avoided system-build-
ing. In Experience and Nature and Art as Experience, his far-ranging commentary
on human life was extended, late in his own life, to deal with the aesthetic
realm. He praises the concrete, specific approach in philosophy, but most of his
comments on the arts are abstract and general. In the present generation, we
have produced no comprehensive examination of the arts which is comparable
in scope to G. F. Raymond's huge series on comparative aesthetics, written at
Princeton during the nineties. Obsolete in many respects today, it still sets an
example as a. large-scale application of theory to copious illustrations from the
arts. T. M. Greene's substantial volume on The Arts and the Art of Criticism
(1940) is one of the few recent attempts in America at a large-scale, philosophical
15 Rieser, M., "Brief Introduction to an Epistemology of Art," Jl. of Philosophy, No-
vember 23, 1950, Vol. XLVII, No. 24, p. 695.
survey of the arts. It deserves to be emulated from different philosophical points

of view. Stephen C. Pepper is working out a flexible systematization through
pointing out the aesthetic and critical implications of different philosophical
world-views, especially the empirical, naturalistic approach, with detailed ana-
lytical references to works of art.'6 The author's recent book, The Arts and their
Interrelations, is an attempt at synthesis from the standpoint of comparison and
classification of the arts."7
A number of recent American books have undertaken to prevent a compre-
hensive survey of the arts. Almost all have been on the level of introductory
college textbooks or popular outlines for the general reader.'8 Some adopt the
historical approach, some that of appreciation and criticism. They help to
satisfy educational needs, and to build a larger public for aesthetics. Simple
language is not necessarily a bar to good thinking, and some of these popular
books contain fresh, enlightening interpretations. But they are under great
pressure from publishers to be brief, entertaining, and untechnical, to avoid
long analyses and erudite allusions. Hence they are often superficial and mis-
leading, confirming the specialist's prejudice against any attempt to deal with
art extensively.
The characteristic British, French, and American antipathy to system-build-
ing has the virtues of all liberalism: avoidance of repressive, inadequate formu-
las; encouragement of flexible, tentative exploration along many lines. The
history of philosophy is strewn with giant fossils of dead systems, whose grandiose
pretensions make them now appear as more colossal failures than an equally
dead short essay. German philosophers dared to build these many-volumed
monsters until recent years, and their fate-in addition to their cost in work
and money-has been a grim deterrent to most would-be system-builders.
These motives have been reinforced in England by the national love of reticent
understatement, of dismissing the weightiest, the most poignant subjects in a
few clipped, casual phrases. "One could easily say more," is the implication;
"but what a bore it would become, and what a vulgar parade of learning!"
Especially in matters of aesthetic and personal emotion, where the less said,
the better. So the more that might be said is never said, and the fragmentary
hints never grow into mature, sustained philosophizing.
There are many intermediate stages between extreme specialization on one
hand, and grandiose, all-embracing systems on the other. Synthetic and some-
times philosophic thinking can be done on a much smaller scale, as when a his-
torian uses insights from both psychology and economics to explain what hap-
pened in fifteenth century Florence; or when the archeologist asks help from
geology, chemistry, and botany in determining the date of a neolithic burial.
Intellectual synthesis may consist in linking a single change in musical style
with a contemporary change in painting or poetry, or with a social or religious
movement.
Some philosophers use a significant, key idea of the time to link together and
18 World Hypotheses, Berkeley, California 1942. The Basis of Criticism in the Arts, Cam-
bridge, Mass. 1949. Principles of Art Appreciation, New York 1949.
17 New York 1949.
18 Dudley, L., and Faricy, A., The Humanities: Applied Aesthetics, New York 1940.
174 THOMAS MUNRO
explain phenomena from widely distant fields. In the nineteenth century "evo-
lution" was such a key idea, and much of the world's best philosophizing on art
and other matters was linked up with it. It served to stimulate and suggest
inquiry in every subject. Today, no single concept holds so central a place in
our thinking, but certainly that of symbolism is near the focus. As Susanne K.
Langer"9 has pointed out, it has important bearings in contemporary logic,
semantics, language, psychology, religion and ritual, visual art, literature,
music, and ethics. Thinkers in fields as remote as psychoanalysis, ethnology,
and the history of Renaissance painting (as in the Warburg Institute researches)
find themselves organizing their discoveries in terms of symbols and mean-
ings-individual and cultural, conscious and unconscious, words and concrete
images. Philosophical synthesis can be exercised with such new tools, on a
moderate scale: e.g., by combining the insights of psychoanalysis and art history
or literary scholarship on the symbolism of a single work of art, such as Hamlet
or Ulysses, Diirer's Melancolia, or Goya's Foolish Fury.20 Such cooperation is
welcomed, not by aesthetics alone, but by each cooperating specialist. The
psychoanalyst today looks to the arts as a rich source of data for understanding
the human mind, but he cannot exploit it without some help from experts in
the field of art.
Every job of synthesis well done has far-reaching repercussions. For example,
it was mentioned above that recent art and art criticism had shown a tendency
to specialize on "pure form"-i.e., on the visual or auditory aspects of painting,
music, or poetry; and to disparage "sentimental associations." This was a
fruitful temporary line of experimentation. But now, we are discovering that
art can have a wealth of other, unsuspected meanings, of many different kinds.
This in turn affects the kind of art produced. Surrealists and other modernists
are trying to exploit such meanings (e.g., unconscious, dream symbolism) as a
source of interest and emotional power.
4. The joining of several streams of thought in present aesthetics.
There has been a marked change in American aesthetics in recent years. It is
branching out vigorously, to include more study of the arts themselves, as well
as of theories about them. It is now commonly conceived as the subject which
seeks to describe and explain, in a broadly theoretical way, the arts and related
types of behavior and experience. It considers the aesthetic experience of nature
and of other types of object in addition to works of art. It is no longer a mere
branch of speculative philosophy, since it incorporates many data and methods
from the sciences, as well as from direct observation of aesthetic phenomena.
It has not abandoned the traditional, philosophical approach, emphasizing
beauty and value; but it also takes in what Dessoir and his associates called
allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft, or general science of art.2" This comprises the more
19 Langer, S. k., Philosophy in a New Key, a Study in the Symbolism of Reason, Rite and
Art, Cambridge, Mass. 1942. Bernheimer, R., "Concerning Symbols," Art: a Bryn Mawr
Symposium, Bryn Mawr, Pa. 1940.
20 Wight, F. S., "The Revulsions of Goya: Subconscious Communications in the Etch-
ings," JAAC, Vol. V, No. 1, September 1946, pp. 1-28.
21 Dessoir, M., Aesthetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft, Enke, Stuttgart 1906, 1923.
Cf. Ducasse, C. J., "Aesthetics and the Aesthetic Activities," JAAC, Vol. V, No. 3, March
1947, pp. 165-177.
fundamental, broadly comparative, and philosophical areas of Kunstwissenschaft,

or scholarly research in the arts. Aesthetics covers also the more philosophical
areas of art criticism, of the psychology of art, of the sociology and ethnology of
art, and of all other subjects touching upon the arts and related types of be-
havior and experience. From these it accepts both generalizations and examples
which cast important light upon its own main problems. Each of these con-
tributory subjects has other areas, less general and fundamental-for example,
ordinary journalistic criticism of day-to-day theatrical and musical performances
-which are more remote from aesthetics. The outer boundaries of aesthetics
are indefinite, but its central core consists of theoretical studies which select,
coordinate, and interpret relevant facts and hypotheses from all sources, about
works of art and those who make, perform, and use them.
Within the enlarged subject of aesthetics, the various approaches are not
completely merged. Co6peration is being achieved, but not the elimination of all
differences in method or opinion. Let us notice some of these different approaches
within the total field.
5. The philosophy of art and beauty.
Modern aesthetics as a whole is philosophical in stressing broad, fundamental
generalizations; but some approaches within it are more philosophical than
others. "Philosophy of art" is not a synonym for aesthetics as a whole; it sug-
gests the more traditional, speculative types of aesthetic theory, in contrast to
the scientific approach. It is still active today, and its work is by no means fin-
ished.
One of the perennial functions of philosophy is to precede and anticipate
science; to explore by guesswork and surmise realms of the universe which science
cannot, so far, effectively penetrate. The philosopher adds up and weighs the
unsystematic observations and experiences of his time and social group; their
opinions and imaginings about the nature of things. He raises problems where
others have distinguished none; thinks out the possible alternative answers, and
tells which seem to him most reasonable or most admirable. He shares to some
degree their prejudices and unconscious motives; he expresses the limited out-
look of his cultural group; but he rises to a broader vision of the world and
humanity, and rationalizes his conclusions more systematically than ordinary
persons do. It is characteristic of philosophers, as of art critics, to mingle judg-
ments of fact with judgments of value; to describe the nature of the world as
they see it, and also to say what is good or bad, beautiful or ugly, according to
their standards.
Most of the great occidental philosophers from the time of Socrates to the
present, and many oriental sages as well, have had something to say about art,
and about the contemplation of beauty. They often discussed these subjects
along with others, or as part of a systematic theory of the universe. Thus the
"philosophy of art" is not a distinct subject or body of writing, but a recurrent
theme of philosophy in general. The distinction between "fine" and "useful"
arts was not widely made until the 18th century. Before then, "art" covered all
useful skills, including those which aimed at beauty (along with other ends) and
those of more purely utilitarian nature, such as iron mining. Even though the
"fine arts," including music, poetry, and the visua! arts, were not clearly recog-
176 THOMAS MUNRO
nized as a class apart, philosophers discussed them in a general way. Plato and
Aristotle both discussed the functions, values, good and bad effects, which music
could have in society, and advanced criteria for judging music to be good or
bad. Beauty and sensuous pleasure were considered, among other effects of art
such as the moral and intellectual. St. Augustine feared the moral and spiritual
dangers of sensuous beauty in art.
Such philosophizing involved some factual description of the general charac-
teristics of the arts and of certain styles, such as the "soft Lydian airs" of music.
It also involved the evaluation of art as good or bad, and the setting up of
general norms. It involved penetrating insights into the psychology of art pro-
duction and aesthetic experience, as in the theories of catharsis and divine
madness. This too was mixed with dogmatic appraisals of different kinds of
artist and mental attitude as good or bad. There was no systematic attempt,
until modern times, at objective, factual accounts of art or aesthetic psychology,
which would avoid evaluative judgments. Philosophers rationalized their ap-
praisals in accordance with their religious, metaphysical, and moral assumptions.
Nevertheless, we now see that these appraisals were all conditioned by the
cultural environment in which the philosopher lived, and by his individual
personality. For example, Plato's philosophy was conditioned by the small,
city-state culture of his time, and by the fact that his beloved teacher was
executed by the Athenian populace. His greatness enabled him to rise above
local, temporary conditions more than most other men have, so that his judg-
ments are often acceptable to people in other cultures; they seem perennially
enlightening whether one agrees with them fully or not.
Plato's meditations, and those of other great philosophers of art, are important
for aesthetics today in two principal ways: (a) as historical and psychological
phenomena; as evidence of ways in which the arts were regarded in different
cultures, and by different types of individual; (b) as hypotheses to guide further
investigation; the insights of early wise men being often far ahead of science in
certain respects, suggesting theories which science later verifies in part.
The development of a scientific approach to art and aesthetics, as described in
this article, does not mean that the philosophical approach is becoming outmoded
or unnecessary. The two are and should be supplementary. But the highly
abstract, speculative approach has too long monopolized the field of aesthetics;
it must now make room for others. It is only the a priori, dogmatic, and tran-
scendentalist schools of philosophy, which scorn to cooperate with natural science,
that are becoming obsolete. Between scientific aesthetics and a naturalistic,
empirical philosophy of art, there is no quarrel whatever. For example, the
influence of Dilthey's empiricism and his theory of world-views, which coincide
in many ways with the teachings of John Dewey, is increasing in American
aesthetics.22
In America, George Santayana's Reason in Art and Dewey's Art as Experience
both belong in the category of "philosophy of art," rather than in "science of
art." They are full of philosophical wisdom and insight; they discuss the varieties
22 Hodges, H. A., Wilhelm Dilthey, an Introduction, London 1944.
of form and experience in the arts with some fullness, instead of confining them-
selves to empty generalities about beauty. In such discussion, they constantly
blend evaluation with description of observable facts. Their methods are those
of the philosopher and not of the scientist, with many sweeping statements which
appeal to the reason and cultivated taste of the reader, but do not attempt
demonstration through detailed experiment or specific evidence. At the same
time, they incorporate some of the scientific information of their day, about the
psychology and sociology of the arts.
It is comparatively easy to work out a broadly synthetic theory of the arts on
a personal, subjective basis; that is, for the philosopher to say what the arts mean
to him. Much past philosophy of art has really been of this type, although put
forward as objectively true. It is a harder task to work one out on a more objective
or intersubjective basis, through coordinating recent scientific knowledge and
theory from a great variety of sources. Most American writing in aesthetics is
still somewhere between the two; rather personal and dogmatic in attitude, yet
with some effort to apply the latest scientific concepts. Many readers are satis-
fied with this informal combination. Some prefer the frankly personal expression,
the "adventures of a soul among masterpieces." Others wish to see aesthetics
become still more scientific and objective, even though it cannot be completely
so.
6. The criticism of art.

Closely akin to "philosophy of art" is the more general, theoretical type of
criticism and informal psychologizing, by essayists, artists, historians, and biog-
raphers of the arts. Here we may place the more theoretical writings of such
American artists as Whistler and Frank Lloyd Wright; such critics and historians
as Henry Adams and Berenson. Such writings are on the whole a mixture of
verifiable knowledge with personal attitudes, tastes, and prejudices which ex-
press the period, nationality, class, and individual make-up of the writer. They
too are of value today, both as historical and psychological data, and as suggestive
hypotheses.
In America, much criticism of the arts has been shallow, ephemeral journalism
or pedantic, historical scholarship; in either case devoid of philosophic breadth
and penetration. France has had its share of both these types, but has also had
in more abundance the critic who is also a gifted man of letters: a poet, painter,
novelist, or composer; a Baudelaire, Flaubert, Anatole France, Debussy,
Delacroix, Valery, Malraux, or Sartre, who can write gracefully, wisely, or wittily
about some art in addition to practicing it. His theoretical comments are in-
tensely personal, never very systematic, often brilliant and profound, but far
removed from plodding scientific analysis. The seductive glamor of this approach
to aesthetics has done much to discourage the scientific approach in France, and
to a less extent in England and America. Raymond Bayer, in his "Recent Aes-
thetic Thought in France,"23 notes the "invasion of aesthetics by literary mat-
ters," as "philosophy and literature become more and more confused and
intertwined with each other." He believes that a positive and formed aesthetics
will offer methodical resistance to the "suggestive and sporadic aesthetics of
23 Farber, M. (ed.), Philosophic Thought in France and the United States, p. 272.
178 THOMAS MUNRO
literary aestheticism." Clever, casual essay-writing about art can achieve fine
literary art in its own right, with occasional deep insights, but not the continuous
development of tested knowledge. When the aesthetician tries to create art at
the same time that he explains it, he risks doing neither very well. He must be
ever watchful of his style and cleverness, ever careful not to be dull or boresome
for a moment. Unfortunately, science often has to be dull and boresome in its
endless scrutiny of details, its dogged pursuit of a single train of thought far
beyond the point where it ceases to be amusing. Masquerading as aesthetic
science, urbane and witty generalities about art and artists often tend (as in
France today) to conceal the absence of genuine scientific inquiry in the field.24
The latter must follow its own more sober course if it is to get anywhere.
Again, this is not to say that aesthetics should sever all relations with art
criticism or with literary discussions of art. It will always find there valuable
data for analysis, in the shape of recorded experiences with art, individual and
cultural attitudes toward art, the processes of forming, applying, and revising
standards of value. More and more critics today approach their problems in a
partly scientific spirit, with some awareness of theoretical advance in fields
related to their own. With these aesthetics will continue to cooperate.
7. Aesthetics in the narrow sense, as theory of beauty.
Through a series of technical discussions in eighteenth and early nineteenth
century German philosophy the word "aesthetics" came into use, derived from
the Greek word for "perception." Originally referring to sensuous knowledge, it
came to signify a branch of philosophy concerned with beauty, especially in the
fine arts, but also in nature.
In the works of some philosophers, "aesthetics" covered a wide field, identical
with "philosophy of art" as just described; that is, it considered the particular
arts. Hegel made it cover a philosophy of art history. On the whole, however, the
tendency was to narrow "aesthetics" down to the single problem of beauty and
aesthetic value;2" to the question of whether judgments of value and claims to
superior taste in art have any objective basis, or rest on mere personal preference;
also to the relations between aesthetic value, moral value, and metaphysics.
Whereas the philosophy of art had included much theorizing on the facts of art,
aesthetics in this narrow sense became largely normative, neglecting problems
of art history and psychology. Theories of beauty and aesthetic value ranged
from extreme absolutism and religious dogmatism to extreme relativism and
naturalism. Leaders in the naturalistic approach, especially in England, were
mostly hedonists, emphasizing sensuous pleasure as a standard of value. In
Germany, the leading philosophers were mostly idealists, emphasizing the role
of art as an expression of the cosmic mind.
8. So-called "experimental aesthetics"; the laboratory or psychometric approach
to the psychology of beauty and aesthetic preference.
24 Malraux's Psychology of Art has many merits, but is not a psychology of art.
26 Andr6 Lalande, in his widely-used Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie
(Paris 1947, p. 291) repeats the traditional definition of esthetique as "Science ayant pour
objet le jugement d'appr6ciation en tant qu'il sapplique A la distinction du Beau et du
Laid. "
AESTHETICS AS SC IENCE: ITS DEVELOPMENT IN AMERICA 179
This branch of aesthetics has also been largely concerned with the nature of
beauty, sensory pleasantness, and aesthetic evaluation. But its methods have
been more descriptive, factual, empirical, and quantitative. As a rule, it does not
make or defend evaluative judgments about art, but observes and describes
certain external aspects of evaluation. It tries to ascertain in an open-minded
way what people actually consider beautiful. Occasionally, evaluative assump-
tions are concealed in a mass of statistical details. This occurs when the investi-
gator assumes that majority preference actually makes a thing more beautiful;
or when he assumes that certain "experts" really know what is best, and then
judges people's taste as good or bad, according to whether they agree with the
experts.
Psychometric aesthetics (a more exact term than "experimental") follows the
lead of Fechner whose Vorschule der Aesthetik in 1876 helped bring about the
experimental approach to general psychology. It emphasizes statistical studies
of aesthetic preference, especially of what kinds of visible shape, proportion, and
color combination are considered most beautiful or pleasing by the greatest
number of persons. The objects to be judged are usually not complete works of
art, but simple geometrical figures, arrangements of dots or strips of color, etc.
Hence this approach is, in its own way, almost as abstract as the philosophical
theories of beauty. Supposedly, Fechner's approach was "from below," or from
empirical data; but in practice it has paid little attention to the complex types
of form which are actually encountered in art and nature. Its data consist rather
in certain behavioristic responses, expressions of preference by the persons tested.
In the early 20th century, Fechner's approach was actively pursued in the
United States by Witmer and others. It has weakened in recent years. In ex-
perimental psychology, now a huge, diversified science, quantitative researches
are still occasionally done on problems related to art and aesthetic preference.26
The psychometric approach is only one small element in the contribution of
psychology to modern aesthetics, and in the scientific approach to aesthetics.
9. Tests and measurements in the field of art.
A special application of the psychometric approach is that of standardized test
devices which claim to measure and rate the individual's taste or judgment of
values in art, or even his aptitude for becoming a creative artist.27 They are
especially popular in American education, where standardized tests of intelli-
gence, aptitude, and achievement in other fields have been used with some
success. There is continuous demand for them in art education, and new ones
are constantly appearing on the market. In general, Americans have great faith
in standardized mass-production methods, in applied science, and in anything
presented with imposing claims to scientific, mathematical accuracy, however
26 Langfeld, H. S., "Aesthetics, Experimental," Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th edition.

Farnsworth, P. R., "Aesthetics, Psychology of," in Encyclopedia of Psychology, New York
1946. Chandler, A. R., Beauty and Human Nature, New York 1934. Ogden, R. M., The Psy-
chology of Art, New York 1938.
27 For a critique of such tests, see the author's "Art Tests and Research in Art Educa-
tion," Western Arts Association Bulletin, Vol. XVII, No. 6, December 1, 1933. Cf. Graves,
M., "How Artistic Are You?", Reader's Digest, December 1950, p. 73.
180 THOMAS MUNRO
superficial that scientific air may be. Such tests usually present the subject
with pairs of pictures or other art works (garments, room interiors, etc.), and
ask him to tell which he prefers, or which is "better." The test assumes that one
of each pair is objectively better, and that a subject who prefers the other is
"wrong" or has inferior taste. Supposedly correct choices are obtained as a rule
from a consensus of supposed "experts" selected by the author of the test, or
by taking well-known pictures, passages of music, etc., and altering them to
produce a "spoiled" version. Sometimes vague, high-sounding "art principles"
such as unity, balance, and rhythm are invoked, with no recognition of the
problems involved in applying them concretely. The usual effect of such tests is
to penalize all deviation from adult, conventional norms of taste in that par-
ticular environment, since the student who prefers the "right" examples gets a
high grade. The relativity of aesthetic values is ignored, no allowance being
made for legitimate differences in taste and style (e.g., for variations according
to age and cultural background), or for the fact that different art forms may
be desirable under different circumstances. Some credulous teachers use them
with harmful results for students; others become skeptical about all attempts
at measurement in the aesthetic field.
When less exaggerated claims are made, statistical methods can be used to
advantage in analyzing tastes and works of art. Unwarranted claims to appraise
art ability, taste, or value in general can and should be avoided. Instead, the
test can deal with more specific, factual matters: e.g., differences in taste with-
out inferring that some are "better" than others; specific effects of altering a
work of art in various ways; specific abilities such as "absolute pitch" and
power to perceive and remember visual patterns. In addition, the techniques of
educational measurement can be used to aid the teacher in making his admittedly
subjective, arbitrary judgments (as in the necessary grading of students' work)
a little more clear and careful, with explicit recognition of debatable criteria,
and no claims to absolute finality.
10. Kunstwissenschaft; science or knowledge of art.
This movement has consisted largely in historical studies of the visual arts.
It includes such related subjects as determining the authenticity, date, and
provenance of a work of art. It differs from "philosophy of art" not only in being
thus restricted, but in being more neutrally descriptive in aim; it seeks to ascer-
tain the facts, rather than to appraise them. As distinguished from the earlier
art history and from art criticism, it aims at objectivity and generalization,
describing styles as historical facts without assuming or arguing that one is
better than another. Much of it has been minutely specialized art history, devoted
to ascertaining and recording particular facts, such as the date and origin of a
certain work of art. There is no clear distinction between Kunstwissenschaft and
Kunstgeschichte, and many scholars in art prefer the latter name.28 Scientific
methods can be used, of course, in discovering particular facts, as well as general
28 The Reportorium far Kunstwissenschaft began publication in 1876 in Stuttgart, under
the editorship of Franz Schestag, a Vienna museum curator, as an outgrowth of the first
congress on Kunstwissenschaft, held in Vienna in 1873. Its pages have been devoted more to
specialized history than to theory.
principles. At times, Kunstwissenschaft rises toward theory in generalizing on

the stylistic traits of certain periods in art, and in explaining them as different
ways of seeing the world.
A leader in this movement was Conrad Fiedler (1841-1895). Says L. Venturi,
"He renounced reflections on the beautiful to occupy himself only with art, and
in that way he is the founder of the science of art, distinct from aesthetics."'
Riegl and Wdlfflin carried on this approach, the latter's "principles of art history"
being widely influential. W6lfflin, in Venturi's opinion, lacks "the comprehensive
universality which is the greatest glory of Riegl." But both are philosophic in
scope. They combine intensive historical knowledge with the power to compare
and generalize widely and deeply. In this respect, theoretical Kunstwissenschaft
is in the tradition which Hegel started with his philosophy of history, including
the history of art and the development of styles. But it is more empirical and
inductive; less concerned with values; less metaphysical. It proceeds from de-
tailed, comparative analysis of many particular works of art, whose chronological
and geographical origins are known, so that generalizations on stylistic change
can be made. It is directly indebted to Burckhardt, historian of the Renaissance,
who wrote to W6lfflin in 1879 about the need for "finding exact formulae for
the living laws of the forms."
11. Aligemeine Kunstwissenschaft; general science of art.
Much Kunstwissenschaft, as we have seen, is highly specialized and remote
from aesthetic theory. But it provides another source of data; hence the possi-
bility of another kind of aesthetics "from below," rising into general theory from
concrete works of art and historical knowledge about them; not (as in Fechner's
approach) from statistics about preference in artificial, laboratory tests.
It is a long way, as to degree of generality, from the details of art history to
philosophical aesthetics. Hence, Max Dessoir believed, there was need for an
intermediate realm of allgemeine, or general Kunstwissenschaft.30 It should con-
tinue to be scientific, objective, and descriptive, not indulging in dogmatic
appraisal or vague speculation about beauty. It should be concerned with all
the arts, including music and literature, and with comparisons between the
arts; not with the visual arts alone. Dessoir and his group sought to build a
firm bridge of verifiable knowledge from the particulars of art to the philosophy
of art; not a shaky, over-extended one like Spengler's philosophy of history.
Solid supports could be found in generalizations of intermediate scope. Objective
studies of intermediate breadth were being made on the art and intellectual
history of different periods; for example, on the blend of Greek, Hebrew, and
Christian symbolism in Michelangelo. Steps were made toward comparative
aesthetics, as in extending Wdlfflin's theory of the difference between classic and
baroque from visual art to music and literature. The pages of Dessoir's Zeit-
schrift fur Asthetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft and the programs of the
" Venturi, L., History of Art Criticism, Dutton, New York 1936, p. 278f., 229. Taine had
previously proclaimed a scientific approach to art, says Venturi, but had not avoided all
evaluation. Fiedler, C., On Judging Works of Visual Art, Berkeley, California 1949. (Tr.
with introduction by H. Schaefer-Simmern.)
30 Dessoir, M., op. cit., and Beitrage ztir allgemeinen Kunstwissenschaft, Stuttgart 1929.
182 THOMAS MUNRO
meetings he inspired were hospitable toward a great variety of subjects and

opinions, which seemed to bear directly or indirectly on the understanding of
the arts. They included a great many specialized studies of artists and works of
art. They included research on the psychology of art, along many lines. Dessoir
himself emphasized the psychology of the artist, and of creative imagination.
Thus the "general science of art" opened its doors to all other scientific studies
of the arts besides the historical one.
There was much discussion in Germany as to whether "aesthetics" and "gen-
eral science of art" should be considered one subject, or two allied ones. Dessoir
and his friends chose the latter alternative, assuming that the traditional, narrow
definition of aesthetics as philosophy of beauty was too firmly fixed to be altered.
That definition was too narrow to cover all the newer, more descriptive studies
of the arts and aesthetic experience; hence the other name must be added to
cover them. At the same time, the constant coupling of the two names, "aes-
thetics and general science of art," implied also the existence of -a new, broad
field including them both. The union thus attempted under the double title was
not only a union of ideas, an abstract realm of knowledge; it was a plan for active
cooperation among scholars in separate academic realms. In Germany as in the
United States, the gulf between various approaches to the arts is widened by
divisions in academic, professional organization, especially in university and
technical faculties. Theoretically, it seems easy to focus many different view-
points on the study of the arts; actually, one must bridge or break down in-
numerable departmental fences, the result of modern specialized education and
research. The professors of philosophy, the artists, art historians, and critics of
the arts, must all be drawn out of their exclusive workrooms, and induced to
collaborate with each other. Borderline studies must be made, and borderline
professorships established. New societies, periodicals, and series of monographs
are practical means to that end. Dessoir's double title gave a reassuring plat-
form, whereon many types of modern scholar could meet and work together,
without seeming to abandon their own special approaches, or be absorbed into
the old-fashioned "philosophy of beauty."
There are other dangers, Dessoir and his friends believed, in calling the com-
bined field "aesthetics." It might seem to imply that art was nothing but the
manifestation of beauty or that the only way of experiencing art was as a source
of aesthetic pleasure. Such implications they strongly rejected, being impressed
by the great variety of functions which art has exercised, and the importance of
studying them open-mindedly. Emphasis on beauty, they felt, stressed the appre-
ciator's point of view at the expense of the artist's. Moreover, "beauty" was apt
to be interpreted as "classical beauty," in accordance with the Winckelmann
tradition. Many other types of art, oriental and primitive, which classical taste
condemned as ugly, must also receive unprejudiced study by the science of art.
The current tendency in France and America is away from Dessoir's double
title, and toward including both subjects under the single name "aesthetics."
Emil Utitz, an associate of Dessoir's, does not insist on maintaining the dis-
tinction between them. In a recent letter to the author, he wrote, "I completely
agree with you when you say: 'The important thing is to have an active discipline
concerned with factual, scientific studies of the arts from many points of view-
psychological, sociological, religious, and other-whether it be distinguished from
aesthetics or included in a broader concept of aesthetics."'
The French society, which was organized before the second world war as
L'Association pour l'tude des Arts et les Recherches relatives a la Science de l'Art,
was dormant during the war. It was revived in 1945 under the simple title,
Socigtg Frangaise d'Esthetique. Its quarterly magazine began publication in 1948
under the title Revue d'Esthetique. The list of topics discussed by both the
French and the American Society and periodical makes it clear that "science of
art" is now covered by the single word "aesthetics." The term allgemeine Kunst-
wissenschaft and its English translation, "general science of art," have never
found much favor in the United States. They are cumbersome and raise un-
necessary controversy over whether there can be a "science" of art, strictly
speaking. Some prefer "philosophy of art," but that term suggests the old,
restricted status of the subject as a branch or application of philosophy. It seems
to deny the subject's modern aspiration to be a distinct, major field of investi-
gation, based on observation of the arts rather than on deduction from
philosophical principles, and cooperating with the sciences quite as much as
with specialized philosophy.
The very fact that aesthetics as a subject has been so undeveloped in America
has prevented its name from acquiring the definite meaning, restricted to the
philosophy of beauty, which Dessoir and his friends found obstructive. It is
correspondingly easier, for those who now seek to establish it as an important
subject in American higher education, to give the word "aesthetics" the newer,
broader interpretation. Only a few American writers3' have sought to preserve
the sharp distinction between aesthetics and the science or philosophy of art.
Of course, if we could start with a clean slate, it would not be hard to find a
better name than "aesthetics," with its many confusing associations. But it is
fairly well established in the broader sense, and a new name would be hard to
substitute.
Flexibility in changing the names and scope of academic subjects is charac-
teristic of the American educational system. In Germany and France, where
universities have long been under strongly centralized, state control, such changes
are more difficult. Here it is comparatively easy to establish a new subject,
department, or professorial chair, or to work out informal, cooperative courses
between different departments. In Germany, where aesthetics had considerable
academic prestige, it was usually taught by a full professor, as a branch of system-
atic philosophy. Special courses on it were usually given by instructors of
lower rank. Little or no recognition was given to allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft as
a definite university subject. In spite of the great theoretical advances made by
Dessoir and his group, and their success in building up a miscellaneous public
interested in the "general science of art," neither they nor the French had gone
very far before World War II, in establishing it as a major academic subject.
12. French and English contributions.
"E.g., H. Kuhn in "Philosophy of Art" and D. H. Parker on "Aesthetics," in Encyclo-

pedia of the Arts, New York 1946, pp. 741, 14.
184 THOMAS MUNRO
It would be going too far to give the Germans full credit for it, or for the
scientific, naturalistic approach to aesthetics. French, English, and American
scholars during the past seventy-five years have done a tremendous amount of
objective research in the history of all the arts, and in the description of styles,
which parallels the Kunstwissenschaft movement in Germany. The French have
their own scientific tradition in aesthetics, stemming largely from Comte, Taine,
and V6ron. Taine stated its objectives clearly in the first of his lectures on The
Philosophy of Art, delivered in 1864, and thus antedating the German leaders in
Kunstwissenschaft.32 Hennequin, Galabert, and others in the nineties outlined
further approaches to scientific aesthetics, such as esthopsychologie, or aesthetic
psychology: "the science of works of art considered as psychological documents
concerning their authors or the public which admired them."33 Paul Val6ry and
Victor Basch, on the eve of World War II, opened the Second International
Congress on Aesthetics and the Science of Art by pointing out the ways in which
aesthetics can make use of scientific aid in attacking its own central problems,
such as the nature and conditions of aesthetic pleasure, and the "laws" or re-
currences in art history.34 Charles Lalo had discussed the methodology of a
broadly scientific aesthetics in 1908, with a review of previous German, French,
and English work, and had then proceeded into many fields--especially music
and literature-with his penetrating psychological and sociological analyses.A5
Etienne Souriau in 1929 outlined a future course for scientific aesthetics.36
Monod-Herzen, Lehel, and Lucien Rudrauf attempted the morphology or struc-
tural analysis of artistic forms.37 Boug1s's Evolution of Values placed the sub-
ject of aesthetic value in a context of naturalistic sociology. France has had many
first-rate cultural historians and analysts of style, such as Male in the medieval,
32 The aim was "defining the nature and marking the conditions of existence of each art. "
Such a study "imposes no precepts, but ascertains and verifies laws." It "Considers human
productions, and particularly works of art, as facts and productions of which it is essential
to mark the characteristics and seek the causes, and nothing more. . . . Science neither
pardons nor proscribes; it verifies and explains. It does not say to you, despise Dutch art
because it is vulgar, and prize only Italian art. . . . Science has sympathies for all the
forms of art, and for all schools, even for those most opposed to each other. . . . It accepts
them as so many manifestations of the human mind. . . . It is analogous to botany, which
studies the orange, the laurel, the pine, and the birch with equal interest; it is itself a
species of botany, applied not to plants, but to the works of man. By virtue of this it keeps
pace with the general movement of the day, which now affiliates the moral sciences with the
natural sciences."
33 Lalande, Vocabulaire, p. 291. Hennequin, E., La Critique scientifique, Paris 1888.
Galabert, E., Les fondements de l'esthetique scientifique, Paris 1898; Revue Internationale de
Sociologie, 1898, pp. 1-15.
34Discours liminaires by Paul Val6ry and Victor Basch, in Deuxibme Congrbs Interna-
tional d'Esthetique et de Science de l'Art, Paris 1937, pp. XII, LI. Basch was appointed in
1918 as the first professor of aesthetics and science of art at the Sorbonne.
36 L'esthetique experimentale contemporaine, 1908; Les sentiments esthetiques, 1910;
L'art et la vie sociale, 1921; E19ments d'une esthetique musicale scientifique, 1939; L'esthe'tique
du rire, 1949, and others.
36 L'avenir de l'esth~tique: essai sur l'objet d'une science naissante.
3 Monod-Herzen, E., Principes de Morphologie gen&ale, 1927; Marguery, E., L'oeuvre
d'art, 1929; Lehel, F., Morphologie comparee des arts, 1930; Rudrauf, L., L'Annonciation,
1943.
and Grousset in the oriental field. Henri Focillon, in his essay on The Life of
Forms in Art and in his lectures at Yale and other universities, made a notable
contribution to the "general science of art" in America. He disliked "aesthetics,"
in the old sense, but was a leader in scientific aesthetics nevertheless from his
vantage point as an art historian.
In England, Grant Allen's Physiological Aesthetics (1877) was a landmark in
the scientific approach. Banister Fletcher's monumental History of Architecture
on the Comparative Method first appeared in 1896. It gives a comparative analysis
of the Gothic, Classic, and Renaissance styles in regard to general plans, walls,
openings, roofs, columns, mouldings, and ornament, with many concrete examples
and a discussion of geographical, geological, climatic, religious, social, and his-
torical influences on style. Works of this type qualify as Kunstwissenschaft and
as aesthetics in the broad present sense, whether or not their authors so labelled
them. But in the English-speaking world of recent years, theoretical studies
within a single art have not been linked up systematically with those in other
arts, or with philosophic aesthetics. This is true of many important British
studies in special fields related to aesthetics, such as those of Frazer in cultural
anthropology and folklore, of Havelock Ellis on the dance and on the psychology
and literature of sex, of R. G. Moulton on literary form,38 of Donald Tovey on
music analysis, of Roger Fry and Herbert Read on visual art. The ingredients
for scientific aesthetics are present, but more thorough synthesis is needed.
The time is overdue for bringing these ingredients together, first of all through
a large-scale program of bibliographies, translations, critical summaries, and
publications in different languages; second, through more thoroughly integrated,
original syntheses. For this purpose, a clear conception of the new and broad
extent of aesthetics is essential. Much of the writing, now accepted by aestheticians
as important for their subject, is not so labelled. An author, with the old concep-
tion of "aesthetics" in mind, may even deny that he is writing about it, or has
any interest in it. Many such reluctant collaborators are being claimed by
aesthetics, willy-nilly. This makes it hard to survey current trends in the sub-
ject. It would be easy to limit one's account to the few recent publications, most
of them highly specialized, which are explicitly classed as aesthetics. But that
would give a very inadequate picture of what is happening on a larger scale.
In saying that aesthetics is expanding to include "general science of art," we
do not, then, refer only to the work of German aestheticians, psychologists, and
art historians. To Dessoir belongs the chief credit for publicizing the need of
cooperation between philosophical aesthetics and empirical studies of the arts.
He advanced the subject more by promoting cooperation among different groups
of scholars, and by combining their contributions, than by any particular new
discovery or theory of his own. The German-writing school of cultural historians,
from Burckhardt through Fiedler, Riegl, Wlfflin, Dilthey, Cassirer, Hermann
Schneider, Spengler (in spite of his many errors), Leichtentritt, Sachs, Panofsky,
and others, have made great indirect contributions to aesthetics through show-
ing the role of the arts in the history of civilization. Important supplementary
38 The Ancient Classical Drama, Oxford 1890; The Modern Study of Literature, Chicago
1915, etc.
186 THOMAS MUNRO
work is coming from other countries and other subjects: especially psychology,
anthropology, and the cultural history of the orient. Thus we have seen, flowing
into contemporary aesthetics, many streams of thought and investigation which
had nothing directly to do with the German "science of art" movement, even
though they can be broadly grouped under that heading.
13. Can aesthetics be a science? Criteria of scientific status.
There has been a good deal of argument as to whether aesthetics is a science,
or can ever become one. The answer depends, first, on what we include within
the field of aesthetics; and, second, on the definition of "science" we accept.
There are several correct ones, according to the dictionaries.
In the narrow sense, which emphasizes exact measurement, aesthetics is not a
science and will not become so in the near future. A small amount of measure-
ment is being done in aesthetics, of works of art and related psychological
phenomena. Works of art can be measured in some respects with considerable
accuracy: for example, as to the dimensions of buildings and vases, the shape
and placing of lines in a picture, the sequences of rhythmic and pitch variations
in music.39 Overt behavior can be statistically measured, as in votes of preference
or other expressions of opinion, and in popular demand for this or that kind of
art.40 But many deeper phases of art and aesthetic experience e.g., the specific
emotional suggestiveness of music, painting, and poetry-are far too complex
and variable to be measured accurately at present. The scope for significant
measurement in aesthetics is gradually increasing, and will continue to increase.
But there is much spade-work to be done in the preliminary grouping, analysis,
and interpretation of phenomena before exact methods will be of major impor-
tance-
Exact quantitative laws and formulas are seldom attained outside the realm
of physical science. Economics uses them increasingly; anthropology and political
science, comparatively little. Even in biology, where exact methods have grown
considerably since Mendel, there is a great deal of important investigation which
cannot be stated in precise quantitative terms. Croce is right in charging that
"the inductive aestheticians have not yet discovered one single law." But "laws"
in the old-fashioned, absolutistic sense of invariable uniformities in nature are
scarcer than we used to think, even in the physical sciences. Instead, the scien-
tist now talks rather in terms of averages, correlations, and over-all trends.
These emerge gradually out of the multiplicity of data in all realms. We do not
measure them exactly, all at once, but gradually refine our quantitative esti-
mates.
It is misleading to restrict the concept of science to fields where measurement
is highly developed, as many physical scientists insist on doing. It seems to
relegate all humanistic investigation to the outer darkness of mere guesswork.
It obscures the important relative differences, in degree of development along
3Y Vitruvius, De Architectura, Bk. III. Birkhoff, G. D., Aesthetic Measure, Cambridge,
Mass. 1933. Hambidge, J., Dynamic Symmetry in Composition, Cambridge, Mass. 1923.
Schillinger, J., The Schillinger System of Musical Composition, New York 1941.
40 Farnsworth, P. R., Trembley, J. C., and Dutton, C. E., "Masculinity and Femininity
of Musical Phenomena," in this issue.
scientific lines, between various fields of investigation. It obscures the important

fact that, even where measurement is not yet possible, great advances can be
made away from primitive thinking toward controlled observation and logical
inference. The mathematical and physical sciences made such advances over
two thousand years ago, very slowly and gradually, and are still not free from
traces of wishful thinking, or from thinking in terms of a local culture-pattern.
Other subjects, now trying to make them, should not be discouraged by the
supercilious pronouncement that it never can be done. A more constructive view
of science is to regard it as a way of thinking which is being gradually developed
in one field of phenomena after another. In deciding on the extent to which a
subject has become scientific, we should judge not only by its conclusions-laws,
formulas, descriptions of fact-but also by its aims and methods of reasoning.
Coming back to the question, "Can aesthetics become a science?", the answer
is definitely "yes"-in the broad sense wherein science is defined by Webster as
"A branch of study which is concerned with observation and classification of
facts, esp. with the establishment . . . of verifiable general laws, chiefly by induc-
tion and hypotheses; as, the biological, historical, and mathematical sciences.
Specif., accumulated and accepted knowledge which has been systematized and
formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of
general laws." This definition leaves room for subjects which do not, at present,
formulate quantitative laws, or indeed any laws. Certainly the historical and
social sciences do not on any large scale. They establish particular events, general
tendencies, causal connections, but not laws of the Newtonian type. Their claim
to scientific status lies rather in their spirit of objective, impartial inquiry, and
in their systematic effort to control observation and inference by logical stand-
ards. Aesthetics is already fairly scientific in these respects, and becoming steadily
more so. It is a natural science, in the sense that man and all his works, including
art, are phenomena of nature. In the narrower sense, in which man is contrasted
with physical nature, it is a humanistic science like psychology and sociology.
If, however, aesthetics is understood in the old, purely normative way as a
subject which attempts to set up universal laws of beauty and good taste which
shall be binding on all individuals, and to prove that we ought to admire one
kind of art rather than another, then indeed aesthetics cannot become a science,
or even a progressive branch of philosophy. From the standpoint of naturalistic
science, it is attempting the impossible. The only "laws" it should try to establish
are flexible, tentative descriptions of observed recurrent patterns in aesthetic
phenomena, such as the tendency of certain kinds of art to produce certain
effects on certain kinds of person under certain conditions.
Some authorities emphasize prediction and control as criteria of scientific status.
Prediction is far advanced in astronomy; control is almost non-existent there,
by the nature of the facts. (Indirectly, as through the calendar, astronomy does
help us in controlling human affairs; but the stars and planets so far elude our
influence-fortunately, perhaps.) In history and anthropology there is little
attempt at either prediction or control. In dealing with the arts, however, a large
amount of rough, informal prediction and control is already exercised. Book and
magazine publishers, theater and film producers, concert bureaus-all these often
188 THOMAS MUNRO
make mistakes, but on the whole they make their living by guessing correctly as
to what people of different kinds will like enough to pay for, in the realm of art.
Educational experiment with the use of different kinds of art is constantly in-
creasing our understanding of what effects each type will have on the thoughts,
emotions, and abilities of different types and ages of student. Organized religion
and government have used art since prehistoric times to influence the feelings,
thoughts, and actions of the public. Greater understanding of the psychological
means of such control leads to greater power in exercising it. The results of such
practical observation and experiment do not often get into textbooks on aes-
thetics; they are more likely to appear in a book on the psychology of adver-
tising. Such dissociation among the various approaches to understanding the
arts is characteristic of this transitional period.
There is no reason why science should limit its experimental study of control
through art to the often trivial concerns of advertising and the often harmful
aims of political propaganda. It can examine the power of art to produce any
kind of effect, desired or undesired; individual or social; aesthetic or practical;
sensuous, emotional, intellectual, or spiritual. It can study the effects of varying
any type of artistic stimulus in relation to the other variable factors concerned.
There are many ways in which prediction, or estimate of probability, is be-
coming an important task of aesthetics. Some are concerned with appreciation,
taste, preference, enjoyment, liking, and so on. The problem may concern a
particular individual at a particular time: what will be his response to a particular
work of art? It may be hard or impossible to predict it, because of the many
variable factors (e.g., transitory moods and attitudes) within him which are
inaccessible to view. If the problem concerns a large group of persons belonging
to a well-defined type, over a long period of time, prediction becomes more
dependable, as in actuarial science; the minor variations and momentary devia-
tions cancel out.
Another type of prediction in aesthetics is concerned with the production of
art. What types of art will be produced in the near and far future? Here again it
is hard to tell in a particular case: what kind of picture will a certain boy draw
tomorrow, if left to himself? One can predict only in certain general charac-
teristics normal to his age-level, etc. The larger inquiry takes us into the realm
of art history: of styles and style trends. We are just beginning to discern the
main outlines of the past history of styles in each art, and in art as a whole:
the broad inclusive trends, such as the alternation of classic and romantic,
Apollonian and Dionysian, throughout the world. As we learn to plot the curves
of past and recent tendencies, we naturally speculate about the future: can one
prolong or project a certain curve into the next quarter century? Will a certain
basic cycle recur, as it has many times before? Similar questions arise in economics
and other social sciences. One is never quite sure; unforeseen factors may break
in; but the margin of error is progressively reduced. Already, in art, there is a
great deal of trained guesswork as to future trends in production: especially in
a1 Munro, T., "Knowledge and Control in the Field of Aesthetics," JAAC, Vol. I, No. 1,
Spring 1941, p. 1. Frank, L., "The Integrative Role of the Arts in Personality." Eastern
Arts Ass'n Yearbook, 1950, p. 17.
the realm of fashions in clothing. Science can gradually increase their dependa-
bility. Trends in production and in taste or appreciation are of course intimately
connected: each influences the other; they never diverge very far.
We owe largely to Auguste Comte the idea that the sciences develop in a
certain order, the earlier ones providing necessary means or foundations for the
later ones. Mathematics, he pointed out, first entered the "positive" stage; then
astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, sociology. The advance has been from
simple to complex: the earlier sciences describing the world in respect to a few
comparatively simple and constant characteristics such as number, magnitude,
and mass; the later ones describing more and more complex and variable phe-
nomena such as those of human society. Each science presupposes its prede-
cessors. Comte did not envisage psychology as a special science, but divided its
phenomena between biology and sociology. His theory was incorrect in some
respects, but on the whole it has been confirmed by later events. Mathematics
employs logic. The physical sciences depend to a large extent on mathematics.
Biology, which made a decisive step toward science in the 18th century with
the logical classifications of Linnaeus, Cuvier, and others, now uses mathematics
and chemistry to an increasing extent. The social sciences, which advanced
toward scientific status in the early 19th century, use the concept of evolution
and other tools derived from the biological, physical, and mathematical sciences.
Next to achieve scientific status was psychology, formerly "the philosophy of
mind," which adopted experimental methods in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries, through the efforts of such men as Helmholtz, Fechner, Wundt, and
William James. Their observation was partly in the laboratory, partly clinical
(as in the case of Charcot and Freud), partly in the outside world of human
behavior. It was heavily indebted to previous biological work on the anatomy,
physiology, and pathology of the brain and nervous system. Psychology is still
learning how to make full use of the social sciences, such as anthropology, with
their information on the varieties of psychic phenomena in different cultures.
These general facts about the history of science apply significantly to the
present situation in aesthetics. No subject can become a full-fledged science
until the prerequisites have been provided by the older sciences. Before then, it
may have individual pioneer steps, brilliant anticipations, but no concerted,
systematic procedure along scientific lines. Attempts to introduce the latter before
the prerequisites are available will be premature and disappointing. This occurred
in aesthetics in 1876, when Fechner tried to introduce laboratory measurement.
He did not then succeed in making aesthetics scientific, because the chief pre-
requisites were not yet in existence. Without them, the central phenomena of
art and aesthetic experience were inaccessible and mysterious. Indirectly, Fechner
helped to provide the necessary tools; through helping to establish the new,
experimental psychology, he did much to lay the foundation for scientific aes-
thetics in the twentieth century.
14. Development of the prerequisites for scientific aesthetics.
To an extent not commonly realized, the necessary tools and materials for
scientific aesthetics have been developed since 1900. Let us briefly summarize
three groups of them, in particular.
190 THOMAS MUNRO
In the first place, a sufficient amount and variety of works of art are now avail-
able, to allow generalization about the arts of mankind on a broad scale. For the
first time, we now have a fair sampling of the chief art products of all the prin-
cipal civilizations, nationalities, and stages of development. There are still large
gaps in our knowledge, but we can see world art as a whole in a way impossible
as late as 1900. This applies to the visual arts, where our data for comparison
include a much wider sampling of oriental, archaic, and primitive arts.42 This is
due in part to archeological excavation; in part to exploration, travel, commerce,
museum techniques, and improved methods of reproduction, as in color-prints
and casts. It applies to world literature, where improved translations and new
editions are now available on a much greater scale. It applies to music, where
new phonograph and sound-film recordings are bringing us exotic music such as
that of India, Java, and the African tribes, as well as much unfamiliar European
music of the Baroque, Renaissance, and Middle Ages.43
In the second place, the social sciences have cooperated to document these
works of art for us historically and culturally: to help us understand them by
seeing them, not merely as museum exhibits, but in their cultural setting." They
show us the status and functions of art and artist in various times and places.
Anthropology and ethnology are showing us the meaning of primitive and
oriental arts, in relation to the entire culture-pattern in which they were pro-
duced, including religious, social, economic, moral, technological, and other fac-
tors. Slowly, this approach is being extended to the complex and diversified
higher civilizations of east and west.45
In the third place, recent psychology has given us a general, naturalistic
description of human nature; of its physiological basis, its animal origin, its inborn
mechanisms, powers, and processes of learning; its cycle of growth and senescence
in personality and mental abilities. We are given an account of such basic func-
tions as visual and auditory perception, emotion, and conation. Psychoanalysis
and depth psychology have explored the life of fantasy in its conscious and un-
conscious levels; the nature of emotion and motivation. All these have a direct,
obvious bearing on the arts.4" The processes and mechanisms involved in the
creation and appreciation of art are now seen to be, not fundamentally unique
or separate, but special applications of those which occur in all other main realms
of human activity.47 Before scientific psychology had given us this general frame-
work of human nature, it was impossible for aesthetics to lift itself, by its own
bootstraps, into an understanding of art.
42 Boas, F., Primitive Art, Cambridge, Mass. 1927. Linton, R., and Wingert, P. S., Arts
of the South Seas, Museum of Modern Art, New York 1946.
43 E.g., the phonograph albums Musik des Orients, African Native Music, and
L'Anthologie Sonore: this last with program notes by Curt Sachs.
44 Kroeber, A. L., Configurations of Culture Growth, Berkeley, Calif. 1944; Anthropology,
New York 1923, 1948. Sorokin, P. A., Social and Cultural Dynamics, New York 1937, Vol. I.
Mumford, L., The Culture of Cities, New York 1938. Mead, M., "The Role of the Arts in a
Culture." Eastern Arts Ass'n. Yearbook, Kutztown, Pa., 1950. p. 10.
41 Benedict, R., Patterns of Culture, Boston 1934; The Chrysanthemum and the Sword,
Boston 1946. Mumford, L., Technics and Civilization, New York 1934.
46 Schneider, D., Psychoanalysis and the Artist, New York 1950.
47 Art in American Life and Education, Ch. XXIV.
In terms of psychology, we can now approach the analysis of aesthetic form

in a new and searching way.8 A painting or statue is not only a physical form, a
configuration of molecules; a sonata is not only a succession of sound-waves.
Each is also an aesthetic form: a stimulus to apperception, which includes the
apprehending of complex configurations of presented sensory details and of
suggested meanings. Suggested meanings become comparatively objective (or
intersubjective) when culturally established, as in the cross as a symbol of
Christianity. A work of art also stimulates emotional, conative, and evaluative
responses, which are important for study in aesthetic psychology, but which
are highly variable from person to person and moment to moment. Hence it is
usually advisable to exclude the observer's affective responses from a description
of the form of a work of art. Even the apprehension of its meanings or suggestive
factor is dependent partly on the observer's previous experience and education.
Its powers of stimulation are determined to a large extent by the culture-pattern
within which the work of art is experienced. A work of art is a vehicle for pre-
serving and transmitting individual and social experience culturally. When the
work of art is produced in one culture, and is exported or preserved for observa-
tion by another culture, its meanings are certain to change. Thus the description
of a work of art in regard to its powers of suggestion requires reference to one or
more cultural backgrounds. The analysis of form also involves a study of the
sensory and other psychological components in artistic form, such as line, color,
pitch, and rhythm. It involves a study of the ways in which all these diverse
components are combined in various arts and mediums to produce the countless
variety of individual works of art, and of historic styles. The descriptive analysis
of form and style, along this and similar lines, is now called the "morphology of
art," or "aesthetic morphology."49 Stylistic analysis is one type or subdivision of
it.
Another psychological approach to the analysis of art seeks to infer the artist's
traits of personality, his motives and mental processes, both conscious and un-
conscious, from observation of his products.50 Following Freud's analysis of the
novel Gradiva, and Jung's of myths and mandalas, many such interpretations
have been made of literature, painting, and sculpture. Drawings and sculpture
by the insane, neurotic, blind, and other types of person have also been psycho-
analyzed. The aim may then be therapeutic or educational. Children's drawings
are analyzed to discover their anxieties and personal problems. A subject's be-
havior toward art-e.g., his comments about a picture- is likewise interpreted
48 Ibid., Chs. XXI, XXII, XXIII.

49 Raymond, G. L., The Genesis of Art Form, New York 1892. Parker, D. H., The Analysis
of Art, Yale Univ., New Haven, Conn. 1926, Ch. II. Munro, T., "Form in the Arts: an Out-
line for Descriptive Analysis," JAAC, Vol. 2, No. 8, Fall 1943, pp. 5-26; "Style in the Arts:
A Method of Stylistic Analysis," JAAC, Vol. V, No. 2, December 1946, pp. 128-159. Hunger-
land, H., "Problems of Descriptive Analysis in the Visual Arts," JAAC, Vol. IV, No. 1,
September 1945, pp. 20-25.
'0 Frank, L. K., Projective Methods, Springfield, Ill. 1948. L6wenfeld, V., The Nature of
Creative Activity, New York 1939. Rapaport, D., Diagnostic Psychological Testing, Chicago
1945. Machover, K., Personality Projection, Springfield, Ill. 1949. Naumburg, M., Schizo-
phrenic Art: its Meaning in Psychotherapy, New York 1950.
192 THOMAS MUNRO
as psychological or psychiatric data.5' Far-fetched, unwarranted inferences are

sometimes made, but on the whole this approach is throwing much new light on
the ways personality expresses itself in art and in responses to art. Critics have
had to warn us, however, that such psychoanalyses of the product and its maker
do not provide a basis for evaluating it. The insanity of Van Gogh does not
imply that his art is necessarily insane or inferior.
Philosophical aesthetics has been slow to accept the contributions of recent
psychology. Its attempts at a psychology of art have clung to metaphysical
abstractions, of little relevance in explaining actual works of art. There has been
a long series of attempts to formulate one simple principle for explaining aesthetic
phenomena, from "the sense of beauty" to "expression" and "empathy." Some,
like "wish-fulfillment," have been taken from other branches of psychology, in a
detached way, without thorough assimilation of the related materials-in this
case, psychoanalytic. The extreme behaviorism of much American psychology
has made us timid about other approaches, especially the introspective. There
are promising signs of increasing rapprochement between psychology, aesthetics,
and the arts; one after another, approaches such as Gestalt, personality diagnosis,
and the psychology of learning are applied to aesthetic problems.52
With the aid of psychoanalysis and individual psychology, we are now in a
position to explore systematically the types of personality found in the world
of art, the personalities of artists, and their relation to the kind of art produced;
the symbolic meanings of art as an expression of the artist's partly unconscious
desires and conflicts;"' the relation between taste and personality; the factors
determining preference in art; the ways in which art is experienced, used, and
evaluated by persons of different age-levels, sexes, and personality types; of
different social, educational, economic, religious, and racial groups. The Jungian
approach stressing the extrovert-introvert contrast and the inheritance of arche-
typal concepts is being applied to all phases of art and folklore.54 Special attention
is being given to the art produced and preferred by children of different ages and
sexes, in different mediums; to the development of art abilities and individual
types of expression, as related to general mental and emotional growth, health,
and maladjustment. Methods of education in the arts are being revised in the
light of a fuller understanding of child psychology, the factors making for creative
imagination, and its value to the child.
Semantics, with its study of words and other signs and meanings, involves an
"Tomkins, S. S., The Thematic Apperception Test, New York 1947.
52 Ogden, R. M., The Psychology of Art, New York 1938. Rees, H. E., A Psychology of
Artistic Creation, New York 1942. Schoen, M., "Aesthetic Experience in the Light of Cur-
rent Psychology," JAAC, Spring 1941, pp. 23-33. Meier, N. C., Art in Human Affairs,
McGraw-Hill, New York 1942. Munro, T., "Methods in the Psychology of Art," JAAC,
Vol. VI, No. 3, March 1948, pp. 225-235. Morgan, D. N., "Psychology and Art Today: a
Summary and Criticism," JAAC, December 1950, p. 81.
53 Jelliffe, S. E., and Brink, L., Psychoanalysis and the Drama, Washington 1922. Weiss,
J., "A Psychological Theory of Formal Beauty," Psychoanalytic Quarterly, Vol. XVI, 1947.
Lee, H. B., "The Cultural Lag in Aesthetics," JAAC, Vol. VI, No. 2, December 1947, pp.
120-139.
64 Jung, C. G., The Integration of the Personality, New York 1939. Read, H., Education
Through Art, London 1943. Bodkin, H., Archetypal Patterns in Poetry, London 1934.
application of psychology and logic to a certain kind of cultural mechanism for

the communication and recording of thought. It overlaps aesthetic psychology,
especially in the study of literature, of signs, symbols, and meanings in all arts,
and of art criticism and evaluation expressed in words.55
General psychology has much to learn from a study of aesthetic data. Its
account of human nature is sadly incomplete while it neglects those forms of
thought and construction in which human nature expresses itself on civilized
levels. It has learned much, but can learn a great deal more, from the insights
of artists about human nature: for example, from the poetry of Coleridge.5"
Many current psychological notions about "basic human nature," put forward
as true of all mankind, have been derived from too limited a sampling of human
beings; mostly from modern western urban culture. Its dilemma has been, that
in examining thought on a high level of complex, rational, and imaginative de-
velopment, it necessarily moves away from those levels on which generalizations
can be made about all human beings, or even all humans of a certain age, sex, and
personality type. It enters a realm where the patterns of thought, feeling, and
behavior differ tremendously in different cultures and periods of history. To
find psychological principles with any approach to universal validity on this
level, we must first compare a great many cultures, and trait-complexes within
them.
This leads directly to the comparative analysis of styles in art; to their in-
terpretation, not only as kinds of art product, but as evidences of how people
think, feel, imagine, and act in a certain place, time, and cultural setting. One
of the new psychological approaches which is most promising for aesthetics is
that of cultural psychology, or the psychology of different cultural groups, often
involving a combination of psychoanalysis with anthropology and ethnology.57
Building upon the hypotheses of Freud's Totem and Taboo, but often differing
with Freud on special points (e.g., the universality of the Oedipus complex), and
building also on fresh data gathered in the field, it provides illuminating theories
of the different types of basic personality involved in different culture-patterns.
Little has been done so far to interpret the art products of these different peoples
in the light of a deeper understanding of their psychic structure; but that is the
obvious next step, from the standpoint of aesthetics.
Important contributions to aesthetics are being made, in America as else-
where, by logic, mathematics, the physical and biological sciences; but space
is lacking here to discuss them.
66 Heyl, B. C., New Bearings in Esthetics and Art Criticism, New Haven, Conn. 1943.
Morris, C., Signs, Language, and Behavior, Prentice-Hall, New York 1946. "Aesthetics and
the Theory of Signs," Jl. of Unified Science, Vol. VIII, 1939, pp. 131-150. Hess, M. W.
"Symbolic Logic and Aesthetics," Jl. of Philosophy, Vol. 37, 1940, pp. 579-581. Creed, I. P.,
"Iconic Signs and Expressiveness," JAAC, Vol. III, No. 11-12, pp. 5-14. Amyx, C., "The
Iconic Sign in Aesthetics," JAAC, Vol. VI, No. 1, September 1947, pp. 54-60.
56 Kahn, S. J., "Psychology in Coleridge's Poetry," in this issue.
57 Kardiner, A., and others, The Psychological Frontiers of Society, New York 1945.
Linton, R., The Cultural Background of Personality, New York 1945. Bateson, G., and
Mead, M., Balinese Character, N. Y. Academy of Sciences, New York 1942. Kluckhohn, C.,
and Murray, H. A., (eds.) Personality in Nature, Society, and Culture, New York 1949.
Haring, D. G. (ed.), Personal Character and Cultural Milieu, Syracuse, New York 1948.
194 THOMAS MUNRO
15. Summary of current trends.

The following tendencies appear to be ascendant in American aesthetics,
though by no means completely victorious:
(a) An international and intercultural outlook, rather than a narrowly na-
tionalistic one; a broadly human, world outlook, rather than a purely occidental
one; a selective synthesis of attitudes toward art from many different cultures.58
This parallels and supplements the current eclectic wave in the arts themselves,
with much selective borrowing, revival, and adaptation from exotic and primi-
tive styles, and different degrees of success in thoroughly integrating them.
(b) An enlargement of the scope of aesthetics to include, besides the traditional
problems of aesthetic value, all theoretical studies of the arts and related types
of experience and behavior. Thus it includes the more general, philosophical
areas in a number of different scientific approaches to these phenomena: espe-
cially those of psychology, the history of the arts and of culture, sociology, and
anthropology.
(c) As a phase of this enlargement, there is less narrow concentration on the
problem of defining "beauty." Aesthetics was formerly regarded as "the philoso-
phy of beauty," a subject devoted largely to explaining the nature of beauty
and ugliness, with a few related ideas such as "good taste" and "the sublime."
These words occur much less often in contemporary discussion. There is no
other small set of concepts to take their place, but a much wider range, to cope
with the diverse phenomena of art and behavior toward art. As to art, there is
much discussion of the varieties of form and style and of factors in them, such
as design, representation, and symbolism. The psychology of art (aesthetic
psychology) is no longer limited to "the sense of beauty," "good taste," and the
"aesthetic attitude" in a narrow sense (e.g., implying extreme detachment). It
studies a great variety of responses to art, of ways of experiencing and using it,
all of which are in a broad sense aesthetic phenomena; also many ways of pro-
ducing and performing it-there is no one, uniform "creative process." To under-
stand the processes involved in art, aesthetic psychology has to study them in
other manifestations also: e.g., to study fantasy in dreams and neurotic symp-
toms as well as in art. But it emphasizes the ways in which human nature mani-
fests itself in art.
(d) Greater interest in the cultural and social aspects of art, along
with sustained interest in the artist as an individual personality. Art is regarded
more as a social manifestation than as a product of isolated individual genius or
supernatural inspiration. Both artist and work of art are linked up with recur-
rent psychological and cultural trends, instead of being placed on a high pedestal
as completely unique and inexplicable. Art is also a social problem and responsi-
bility, for best use and development in the interest of general welfare.59
68 Northrop, F. S. S., The Meeting of East and West, New York 1946. Remenyi, J., "Na-
tionalism, Internationalism, and Universality in Literature," JAAC, September 1946,
pp. 44-49. Munro, T., The Arts in General Education: a Program for Cultural Interchange."
Eastern Arts Assn. Yearbook, Art in General Education, Kutztown, Pa., 1949, p. 25.
9 As in John Dewey's Art as Experience, New York 1934. Also, for example, Condit, C. W.,
"Modern Architecture: a New Technical-Aesthetic Synthesis," JAAC, Vol. VI, No. 2,
December 1947, pp. 45-54. Zucker, P., "The Role of Architecture in Future Civilization,"
JAAC, Vol. III, No. 9-10, pp. 30-38.
(e) Greater interest in the utilitarian, instrumental, functional aspects of art,

along with sustained interest in the more distinctively aesthetic ones, which
are experienced in direct perception. Abandonment of the sharp antithesis be-
tween aesthetic and practical, fine and useful art; recognition that both types
are constantly mingled. Abandonment of the aristocratic assumption that purely
fine and aesthetic art and experience are essentially superior. (These points are
much emphasized by Dewey.) At the same time, there is a growing belief that
American culture has overemphasized the narrowly practical, and needs to de-
velop the aesthetic and intellectual phases of its culture. Thomas Jefferson, who
combined artistic gifts with democratic statesmanship, set us a good example
in this respect: due attention to both practical utility and decorative form; a
place for the arts in liberal education.
(f) A broadly practical approach to aesthetics itself. From Emerson to Dewey,
it has been emphasized in America that philosophy itself, as well as art, should
retain close touch with everyday life. Philosophical ideas should grow out of prac-
tical as well as scientific experience, and return again to help reorganize our
thought and action in every phase of life. Aesthetic theory, likewise, should grow
out of experience with the arts and other aesthetic phases of life; then return to
clarify and redirect our beliefs and attitudes in that realm. It should be practical
and utilitarian in this broad sense, though not (this point is often misunderstood
abroad) in the sense of seeking quick material returns in the shape of power,
wealth, efficiency, physical comfort, and the like. A broad conception of "prac-
tice" includes all phases of aesthetic and artistic activity: the writing of sym-
phonies and sonnets and the appreciation of their aesthetic, intellectual, and
other spiritual values. In these activities, aesthetic methods and concepts can
be dynamic, useful tools, and American writers are trying to make them so.
Things which are "useless" in the narrowly practical sense may have another
kind of utility in the cultural realm. In Europe, the tradition lingers on that
aesthetics should confine itself to pure, abstract reasoning about beauty, and that
any practical aim whatever in such reasoning is a fault, not a virtue. The danger
of this attitude, from the American point of view, is that aesthetic theory be-
comes inert, false, and artificial, of little value even on the intellectual level.
(g) A democratic attitude, regarding art as for the benefit of all who are capable
of making, using, or enjoying it; a disposition to extend its benefits and oppor-
tunities as widely as possible, and to allow considerable freedom of experimen-
tation in it.60 Such freedom is limited by precarious economic support for many
kinds of art; also by moral codes which are still strict in sexual matters, though
relaxing; also by pressures from various racial and religious groups to prevent
artistic expressions offensive to them. This applies especially to mass media such
as film and radio. Otherwise, there is no strong tendency to limit the production
of art to that which all can understand and enjoy, or to make it directly sub-
servient to the state, as in totalitarian regimes. The activity and influence of
government in art remain slight (much less than in Europe) having declined
again since the wave of government sponsorship for art projects during the
recent depression. One of the distinctive features of American art is its almost
wholly private sponsorship, by individuals or corporations; the comparative lack
60 Kallen, H. M., Art and Freedom, New York 1942.
196 THOMAS MUNRO
of direct initiative in art production by political or ecclesiastical agencies. This

is reflected in aesthetic theories of the autonomy of art, its right to complete
freedom of individual expression, as opposed to the belief in its subordination to
church or state; and to an emphasis on its religious, moral, or civic responsibility.
The doctrine of "art for art's sake" remains strong in practice though often
attacked by American theorists; art being still popularly regarded as a pastime
for leisure entertainment.
(h) Empiricism, in a broad sense, rather than a priori rationalism or mysticism.
The basing of inferences on observation through the senses and by introspection;
on experience, individual and collective, rather than on deduction from first
principles regarded as self-evident or as revealed by supernatural authority.
This does not imply any of the special psychological and epistemological theories
which have been associated with empiricism in the past, especially in British
eighteenth century philosophy. It does not imply extreme associationism or
behaviorism, or the limiting of data to what can be directly observed from the
outside.
(i) In value theory, a trend toward relativism and descriptive, factual investigation.
(j) In metaphysics and in general philosophical world-view, a trend toward
naturalism. Let us consider these last two trends in some detail.
16. Trends in aesthetic value-theory.
Moderate relativism in standards of value lies between the two opposite
extremes of absolutism and individualistic anarchy.6' It implies a belief that
there is no single rule or standard for determining the worth of a work of art
under any and all conditions; there is no metaphysical or religious basis for
believing that any specific standards of good art are inherent in the nature of
the universe, or that any one style of art is divinely ordained. There is no par-
ticular kind of art which is best from every point of view; there is no one right
way to produce, perform, or experience art; there are many good ways, each
with different values. On the other hand, aesthetic value is not to be dismissed
as purely subjective and individual. Evaluation is both an individual and a
social process, based in part on our common physical nature, in part on the
diverse and changing conditions, needs, and functions which art is called upon to
exercise, and in relation to which works of art are given different values at
different times.A2
There is increasing emphasis today on a descriptive, fact-finding approach
to aesthetics, as distinguished from the old, purely evaluative approach. Aes-
thetics and ethics were formerly regarded as "normative" subjects, aimed at
establishing rules of good art and standards for evaluation. This was in contrast
with the "natural" or descriptive sciences, which aimed at reporting the facts
of nature. Evaluation is still a major concern of aesthetics, but is no longer the
whole concern. There is a tendency to feel that aesthetics has also an important
descriptive task to do, which is analogous to that of other natural sciences: in
observing, describing, and seeking to understand the nature of the arts and of
related types of experience and behavior; not superficially, but as to their
underlying tendencies, recurrent patterns, and causal relationships.
61 Heyl, B. C., "Relativism Again," JAAC, Vol. V, No. 1, September 1946, pp. 54-61.
62 Boas, G., Wingless Pegasus, Baltimore 1950.
Furthermore, it is felt that at certain times, in the interest of descriptive

accuracy, aesthetics should try to avoid value-judgments, expressed or implied,
and devote itself to setting down the facts as it finds them. During the pre-
scientific stage, as in all other sciences, its accounts of fact have been indiscrimi-
nately mixed with personal evaluations, expressions of approval and disapproval.
Thus early biology praised the lion and the pelican as noble beasts, teaching a
good moral lesson. Now the biologist observes the disagreeable mosquito and
typhoid germ with equal and dispassionate care; his feelings toward them have
no place in his account of their structure and behavior. Aesthetics has been so
impatient to arrive at rules and judgments of value that it has neglected the
factual investigation of aesthetic phenomena. The latter is important, first as a
part of the general scientific pursuit of truth; the task of understanding human
nature and its environment. Second, it is important as a step toward using and
controlling art more effectively in the interest of human welfare. Third, it is a
necessary basis for the intelligent, informed evaluation of art, artists, and ex-
periences of art. To evaluate wisely in any field, we must at times stop arguing
about values, and examine the facts and tendencies on which values are based.
True, values are a kind of fact and of natural phenomenon; they are not
mysterious, trancendental qualities outside the order of nature. But they are
a peculiar kind of fact, whose study presents unusual difficulties. The value of a
picture cannot be directly observed in the same way that one observes its size,
shape, and color. To study it, we must observe its relation to human beings: its
uses and effects in their experience.
It would, of course, be quite impossible to exclude evaluation entirely, even
from those phases of aesthetics which are predominantly descriptive in aim. One
evaluates in the very act of deciding what problems, artists, and works of art
are most worth studying. Complete objectivity is impossible in any realm of
human thought. But there is a real difference in emphasis. In certain phases of
aesthetics, such as axiology and theories of criticism, one deals directly and
explicitly with evaluative problems as such. In others, such as stylistic analysis
and aesthetic psychology, one tries to keep one's personal tastes and cultural
prejudices in the background, and to describe outstanding types and trends in
the phenomena without regard to whether they are good or bad, beautiful or
ugly.
To be scientific, aesthetics does not need to evade the task of evaluation
altogether, or postpone it until all the facts have been discovered. This would
leave it entirely to the supernaturalists and trancendentalists, who are quite
ready to take it over with their vague and ancient dogmas, insisting that science
is incapable of dealing with it. Science can deal with it and is doing so, but in a
roundabout way. It is steadily making evaluation more informed and rational
by providing relevant information in each field, analyzing assumptions, and
developing appropriate, reliable methods of inference. But one must not expect
from scientific aesthetics that which, from the standpoint of naturalism and
relativism, is impossible. One must not expect any simple, specific formula for
distinguishing good from bad art under any and all conditions.
In aesthetics, the descriptive phase is not yet fully conscious and consistent.
In current studies of art, especially of recent, controversial styles, description of
198 THOMAS MUNRO
fact is constantly mixed with judgments of value. An artist's work, or a style

such as cubism, is described partly in terms of observable characteristics such
as angular lines, design of flat color-areas, etc.; partly in terms expressing praise
or disparagement, such as beautiful or ugly, crude or well-drawn, successful or
unsuccessful, pleasant or disagreeable, better or worse than some other. There
is nothing wrong in such evaluation per se; it is the business of art criticism,
and every human in a free society has the right to express his likes and dislikes.
But evaluation obstructs scientific progress when it is advanced, not frankly as
an expression of personal attitudes or debatable standards, but as an objective
account of the facts. It is a naive survival of primitive thinking when the critic
projects his own emotional responses into the outside world, and assumes that
things are really good or bad in themselves, in accordance with his likes and
dislikes. The amazing thing is that so many philosophers and scholars of reputa-
tion, men who practice scientific objectivity in other fields, will lose it completely
in discussing art. From the objective analysis of form and style, they will slip
unconsciously into glorifying this artist, damning that, and rationalizing their
judgments with erudite but specious technical arguments. In a psychological
account of the creative or appreciative process, they will argue that a certain
way of painting or looking at pictures, or of listening to music, is the right one;
others incorrect or inferior. As a result, the whole discussion becomes contro-
versial and degenerates into fruitless wrangling over tastes, with little advance
in knowledge. In past aesthetics, evaluative disputes have so monopolized the
floor that descriptive inquiry seldom has a chance to begin. Aesthetics develops
along scientific lines as more and more workers in it try to suspend and restrain
their impulses to praise and disparage along with description of the facts.
The subject of evaluation itself is now approached in a more descriptive
spirit,63 with the aim of discovering the nature of the evaluative process and of
determining factors in it, both in human nature and in its cultural environment ;64
the ways in which evaluation is performed and expressed; their semantic, logical,
epistemological, and metaphysical implications ;65 the history of taste ;66 the
various kinds of art which people of different types and cultural groups have
preferred, and why; what standards of value are actually used in different
cultural groups and periods; how they have arisen, why they are accepted, and
63 George Santayana, in a letter to the author from Rome, recalling the latter's enthu-
siasm for primitive Negro sculpture, added, "There is a theme for your Society to investi-
gate philosophically and scientifically. I am glad that you are approaching the vast subject
of the arts from that side, rather than from that of precepts and taste. The philosophers
have written a good deal of vague stuff about the beautiful and the critics a good deal of
accidental partisan stuff about right and wrong in art. If you will only discover why and
when people develop such arts and such tastes, you will be putting things on a sounder
basis." (JAAC, Vol. IV, No. 2, December 1945, p. 131.)
64 Dewey, John, Theory of Valuation, Chicago, Ill. (Reprint from International Encyclo-
pedia of Unified Science, Vol. II, No. 4) 1939, 1943.
65 Lepley, R. (ed.) Value, A Cooperative Inquiry, New York 1949. Hilliard, A. L., The
Forms of Value, New York 1950.
66 Chambers, F. P., Cycles of Taste, Cambridge, Mass. 1928; The History of Taste, New
York 1932. Allen, B. S., Tides in English Taste, Cambridge, Mass. 1937. Schucking, L. L.,
The Sociology of Literary Taste, London 1944.
with what results;67 their relation to other cultural factors; how they express
different attitudes, culture-patterns, motivations, and stages in social develop-
ment; what ends and functions art has served, both consciously and uncon-
sciously; what effects each type of art tends to have on and for different types of
person under different conditions.68 The functions and experiences thus examined
include both instrumental and immediate or consummatory, utilitarian, and
aesthetic; perceptual, emotional, cognitive, and other.
Much that was formerly expressed in terms of value is now expressed in more
descriptive terms. For example, one can state that a certain kind of art is con-
ducive to certain specific ends which are approved by certain groups or types
of person in a certain culture and period, one's own or another. Such generaliza-
tions tend to be explicitly limited and relative in scope, as a correlation between
specific variables; they do not assert that something is good or bad in general.
Particular styles of art, or characteristics of art, are recognized as conducive to
particular kinds of aesthetic effect, so that the artist can use them as means to
that end if he so desires; but this is not to say that they are always right. Past
rules and precepts for good art, formerly regarded as universally true, are now
regarded as expressions of a certain temporary cultural attitude, associated
with the production of a certain style of art. They suggest possible means and
ends to the modern artist, showing him how to produce many different effects,
and they help us understand the motivation of past styles. Standards and
judgments of value are recognized as open to criticism and correction in some
respects:69 e.g., as involving verbal ambiguities or logical fallacies in reasoning,
or as based on misconception of the facts. They may assume a false belief as to
the effect of certain kinds of art on health or moral conduct; e.g., the effect on
children of films dealing with crime. Also, one may recognize that a certain kind
of taste is motivated by juvenile attitudes, limited experience, neurotic conflict,
or temporary passion inconsistent with the individual's more stable character
configuration. This does not mean that it is bad taste, but it helps one to under-
stand it, and to work out one's own tastes and standards in the light of this
knowledge.
Much aesthetic evaluation can be descriptively expressed as (a) a prediction
as to the probable future effects of a work of art, immediately, instrumentally,
or both; (b) an estimate as to the relation between such probable effects and the
set of aesthetic and moral standards accepted by the individual or group, as
conforming or conflicting with them. The work of art can be described, after
investigation, as conducive or non-conducive to certain effects; hence, perhaps,
as successful or unsuccessful in achieving a certain end which the artist aimed
at, or which the observer expects and desires in works of this type.
67 Boas, G., A Primerfor Critics, Baltimore 1937. Munro, T., "The Verification of Stand-
ards of Value," Ji. of Philosophy, May 25,,1922. Hungerland, H., "Suggestions for Procedure
in Art Criticism," JAAC, Vol. V, No. 3, March 1947, pp. 189-195. Leichtentritt, H., "Aes-
thetic Ideas as the Basis of Musical Styles," JAAC, Vol. IV, No. 2, December 1945, pp.
65-73. Cazden, N., "Musical Consonance and Dissonance: a Cultural Criterion," JAAC,
Vol. IV, No. 5, September 1945, pp. 3-11.
68 Schoen, M. (ed.), The Effects of Music, New York 1927. Wells, K. M., "The Fugue as
an Expressive Vehicle," JAAC, Vol. VI, No. 4, June 1948.
49 Santayana, G., Reason in Art, Ch. X, "The Criterion of Taste," New York 1905.
200 THOMAS MUNRO
Even the evaluation by an individual, of a work of art in front of him, is

often based on assumptions (more or less unconscious) about the object's probable
future consequences or potentialities, as a stimulus to favorable aesthetic ex-
perience by himself and others. This usually happens in buying a picture to be
placed on view in one's home. Judgments on the object's probable conduciveness
to certain effects can be made more reliably in regard to large groups, over a long
period of time, than in regard to an immediate, individual response. E.g., we can
predict with some accuracy what kind of story, toy, or garment will please most
ten-year-old boys in a certain environment.
Predictions can be more accurate when made about fairly specific types of
art, in relation to specific types of individual and situation, than when vague
and sweeping. Hence, the descriptive investigation of evaluative phenomena
cannot be carried far without a reliable, scientific classification of types of (a)
art product; e.g., into styles, or types of aesthetic form in terms of apperceptible
characteristics; (b) culture-pattern, including social standards of aesthetic value;
(c) individual personality; stable configurations of motivation and habit, as
affecting taste and preference; (d) transitory configurations in the individual,
passing moods, desires, aversions, attitudes, which strongly affect aesthetic re-
sponse; (e) circumstances, conditions, external situations in which aesthetic re-
sponses and evaluations occur; e.g., those of work, play, worship, war; the setting
or context in which the work is experienced-e.g., a museum, church, concert-
hall, dance-hall, park, theater, or library. Correlations and joint products of these
variable factors can then be observed and described more accurately.
Sweeping, dogmatic evaluations in criticism are now giving place to analyses
of what specific, diverse effects a work of art does or does not achieve. One
asks, for example, how successful and consistent it has been in achieving the
peculiar aesthetic qualities expected of a certain style, such as rococo or romantic.
Judgments of the superiority of one historic style over another are made only
relatively, with the recognition that each has its own distinctive values, and
that different ones may be preferable at different times. Such traditional stand-
ards as unity, variety, symmetry, realism, and the like are recognized as ex-
tremely vague and ambiguous, taking on specific meaning only when concretely
applied. They stand for different groups of qualities often desired in art, some-
times reconcilable and sometimes not. The relative weight or importance as-
signed to each group varies greatly according to the period, social setting, and
specific occasion. The "greatness" of an artist or work of art is felt to involve
many debatable issues, such as "originality" or historical priority, and also the
power to maintain the interest and respect of 6lite groups in successive genera-
tions.
Evaluation, in art and ethics, cannot be made entirely scientific, logical, or
rational. One's acceptance of certain aims and standards in art is basically a
conative, emotional process, determined by heredity and environment. An
individual may think he is arriving at his standards by pure reason and proving
them logically, but this is an illusion. The very willingness to accept certain
arguments, evidences, and modes of thinking rather than others; to be dogmatic,
mystical, or empirical, ascetic or sensuous, has been previously developed in
him.
Science can never prove that an individual ought to like or desire something
which his entire personality structure, his innate endowment, and cultural
conditioning impel him to detest. Modern occidental culture cannot prove to a
primitive, ecstatic, thaumaturgic culture that its own rational, practical, extro-
verted aims are best. But for those who already accept its general aims and
premises with regard to the values of life and the trustworthiness of logical,
empirical reasoning, science offers help in achieving those values more fully and
effectively through art. It may hope to show, for example, how mental and
physical health, social cooperation, earthly happiness and pleasure, the growth
of perceptual, imaginative, and intellectual powers, variety and richness of
experience, can be most effectively achieved through the arts if one wants to
achieve them. Such techniques can never be reduced to a simple, static formula.
The most effective means will vary too much in relation to individual differences
and changing conditions. But they will not vary completely. Human nature and
its environing conditions also display much that is similar, enduring, or recurrent.
Therein lies the hope for generalized, flexible, relativistic value-standards which
will express more than an individual's passing fancy. Though not eternal or
universal, they will express fairly widespread, enduring tendencies in specific
age, sex, and personality types and in large cultural groups, Thus they will
offer help in making both social and individual evaluation more informed and ra-
tional, for those who wish it to become so.
Investigation is producing a multitude of tentative generalizations, subject to
change with increasing knowledge, as to the tendency of certain types of art to
fulfill iertain functions or lead to certain consequences, depending on the per-
sonalities and circumstances involved. They vary greatly in degree of generality:
some attempting to show that certain tendencies hold true for human nature on
the whole, or at least for all adult, civilized humanity, as constant behavior-
traits underlying all cultural variation. However, philosophy is not limited to
generalizations of maximum breadth, which are often so abstract as to have
little importance in theory or practice. There is need for more studies of inter-
mediate breadth in aesthetics.
There is also need for scientific help in the practical work of evaluating art.
While philosophers debate interminably over the theoretical possibility of value-
judgments, these are being made on every hand without much help from science
or philosophy. Teachers of the arts have to grade their students' work and
award prizes and scholarships.70 Historians praise some artists and ignore
others. Critics are paid to advise us -what plays to see, what music to hear, and
what books to read. Official commissions pass on plans for public parks and
buildings. Museum officials purchase works of art. There is too great a gap
between this practical, everyday work of aesthetic evaluation and the ab-
stractions of philosophic value-theory. The latter could help to make evaluation
more informed and intelligent, more conscious of its standards and the reasons
for them, more specific as to means and ends. At the same time, it could learn
something about evaluation from observing and cooperating in this work.
70 Art in American Life and Education, Bloomington, Ill. 1941, Chs. XXIII (Munro),
XXVII (Faulkner), XXX p. 599 (Patzig). Beverley, F., "The Art Teacher and Evaluation,"
in Art Education, Today, New York 1949-50, p. 85.
202 THOMAS MUNRO
Most value-theory in recent American philosophy has been so highly special-

ized on formal, dialectical problems that it has paid little attention to the
wealth of new empirical material from various sciences, which reveals how
aesthetic evaluation actually occurs in life, and its relation to other psychological
and social factors.7' Thinkers such as Dewey, with genuinely philosophical
scope, see the need of considering the light which anthropology throws on
valuation in different cultures. There are many useful approaches to aesthetic
value today. Semantics, logic, and metaphysics are among them. They are
analyzing and clarifying the concepts and propositional forms in which value-
judgments are expressed, and pointing out the philosophical assumptions in-
volved. But complex emotional attitudes and practical considerations cannot
all be reduced to a few simple, logical formulas. Thinking about aesthetics too
much iih terms of formal logic tends to become artificial and remote from the
life situations out of which actual evaluative problems arise. The gulf between
them must be bridged by more extensive empirical reference in value-theory.
17. Naturalism and supernaturalism.
American aesthetics is today strongly naturalistic, in a broad sense opposed
to supernaturalism, transcendentalism, mysticism, pantheism, metaphysical
idealism or dualism. It implies the belief that works of art and experiences
connected with them, like thought and other human activities, are phenomena
of nature, continuous with those examined in the physical and biological sciences,
and arising out of them through evolution; different in degree of complexity,
variability, and other respects, but involving no fundamental difference in kind
which would make aesthetic phenomena permanently inaccessible to scientific,
empirical investigation. This does not mean that the concepts and methods of
the older natural sciences, or those of biology, psychology, or the social sciences,
are wholly adequate for dealing with aesthetic phenomena. In exploring each
new field of phenomena, science must develop new concepts and new procedures.
Naturalism in aesthetics does not necessarily imply a complete metaphysical
naturalism, materialism, mechanism, atheism, agnosticism, or any specific theory
in that realm.72 It is quite compatible with many forms of religious belief. It
does not imply that art should be a mere imitation of sensuous appearance, or
devoted to sensuous pleasure, or dwell upon evil and ugliness; it does not imply
that expression of religious and moral ideals in art is unimportant. It does go
along with the general tendency of western civilization since the Renaissance
to shift attention and interest from things of a supposed other world to things
of this world, with a basis in physical nature. It is not the same as "naturalism"
in the special sense applied to Zola and other French artists of the 19th century.
It implies no praise or preference for any particular style of art.
The relation of aesthetics to the other traditional branches of philosophy-
logic, epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics-still engages the attention of
71 Henry, W. E., "Art and Cultural Symbolism, a Psychological Study of Greeting

Cards," JAAC, Vol. VI, No. 1, September 1947, pp. 36-44.
12 Two recent symposia on naturalism, including discussion of aesthetic value: Krikorian,
Y. H. (ed.), Naturalism and the Human Spirit, New York 1944; McGill, V. J., Sellars, R. W.,
and Farber, M. (eds.), Philosophy for the Future, New York 1949.
American philosophers, and rightly so. Much as naturalistic aestheticians may

try to avoid philosophical assumptions, they cannot wholly do so. Their efforts
to produce an aesthetics without metaphysical commitments often seem to their
adversaries as mere evasion or failure to think consistently and systematically.73
It would be better in the long run for them to risk head-on attack by frankly
avowing a thorough-going naturalistic philosophy, if that is what they believe.
The practice of building up aesthetic theories empirically, and not by direct
deduction from a priori principles, is only partly an escape from metaphysics
and epistemology. Tacitly, if not explicitly, it indicates a disbelief in the au-
thority of such alleged principles (e.g., of metaphysical idealism or divine man-
date) and a sympathy with some form of the naturalistic world-view. It im-
plies respect for sense-data as a source of knowledge, and respect for the life
of the senses, physical desires and emotions, as potentially good. Naturalistic
aesthetics is in great need of clarifying its position in a coherent philosophic
system. It is flexible, and can be squared to some extent with many rival doctrines
in metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology. Such issues should not be concealed
or evaded, but explored to the full, even though they are not of great interest to
all students of the arts. Thus future thinking on aesthetics will have the benefit
of searching philosophic criticism, and will pay for it by providing new grist for
the philosopher's mill.
Contemporary French philosophy is in especial need of a vigorously natural-
istic, empiricist, or positivist approach, as a middle course between the extremes
of traditional dualism or panpsychism on the one hand, and Marxism on the
other. There as elsewhere the Communist distortions of scientific materialism,
for polemic reasons and with cynical disdain for truth, have driven many intel-
lectuals back to religious traditionalism. French students of philosophy and
aesthetics often fail to realize the possibility of any third alternative. For a
while, it was hoped that existentialism would provide a middle course, continuing
the great tradition of Comte and Taine. But that movement, in spite of its air
of sophistication, seems hopelessly bogged down in obsolete metaphysical, ethical,
and verbal pseudo-problems.74
The international trend discussed at the beginning of this article has, in the
field of art history and connoisseurship, favored a slight revival of oriental
transcendentalism and mysticism. This trend is felt more in aesthetics than in
other branches of philosophy. The visual arts of oriental and medieval super-
naturalism are still very much alive and respected, whereas some other phases
of these cultures have less to offer the modern occidental philosopher. The
scholar who spends years in the admiring study of past religious art often comes
to believe, to some degree, in the truth of the creeds which inspired it, and to
condemn modern naturalism for its many faults and crudities.76
73 Reid, J. R., A Theory of Value, New York 1938, Ch. VIII, "Naturalistic Standards."
Cf. Aiken, H. D., "Criteria for an Adequate Aesthetics," JAAC, December 1948, pp.
141-148, with discussion by Boas, Ducasse, and Pepper.
74 Rau, C., "The Aesthetic Views of Jean-Paul Sartre," JAAC, December 1950, p. 139.
Ames, V. M., "Existentialism and the Arts, " in this issue.
7 Coomaraswamy, A., The Transformation of Nature in Art, Cambridge, Mass. 1934.
Morey, C. R., Christian Art, New York 1935.
204 THOMAS MUNRO
This is not the place to debate religious or metaphysical issues. But one or
two points should be clarified in passing. It goes without saying that aesthetics
in a democracy, such as France or the United States, is a field in which radically
different beliefs and approaches can flourish. Its professional societies and
journals in both countries have explicitly welcomed such difference of opinion.
The pragmatist will look to see what fruits are produced by each school of
thought; if ancient schools, now out of fashion, can be fruitfully revived, so
much the better for everyone. But it is sometimes hard to tell what creed should
get the credit for a particular achievement. People are never quite consistent,
and a philosopher may be a supernaturalist in some respects, a naturalist in
others. There are many possible areas of agreement and cooperation between
persons whose beliefs on metaphysical ultimates are at opposite poles. Disagree-
ments often turn out to be partly verbal.
Vigorous proponents of supernaturalism and transcendentalism, in one form
or another, have not been lacking in our time. Croce was a doughty fighter in
his recent attack on Dewey's aesthetics.76 Maritain and other Neo-Thomists
have recalled to many Americans that medieval Catholicism had a definite
philosophy of art, surprisingly flexible in relation to post-impressionist experi-
mentation.77 The late Ananda Coomaraswamy stoutly belabored modern natural-
ism in art and art theory, while defending the so-called Philosophia Perennis,
which, he believed, had been shared by all true philosophers of east and west.
"Mr. Coomaraswamy's bate noire," writes Katharine Gilbert,78 "is aesthetics.
Since he fixes the meaning of the term by its etymology, and does not believe in
progress, it would seem futile, for one who believes in the history of aesthetics
as precisely the progressive enrichment of understanding in matters relating to
art, to argue with him." Many of the faults for which he berates aesthetics have
long been attacked and discarded by modern aestheticians; many of the things
he urges have long been done. Holding a narrow definition of aesthetics, and a
false conception of modern art as concerned only with sensuous appearances and
pleasures, he ignores the tremendous amount of work which has been done in
recent aesthetics on the moral, intellectual, and cultural significance of art.
Nevertheless, his own interpretations of oriental art and the oriental philosophy
of art have been eagerly accepted by aestheticians, critics, and historians of all
schools. They are invaluable aids in freeing modern aesthetics from occidental
provincialism, and giving it the international, cosmopolitan scope described in
the first section of this article. Coomaraswamy's anti-empiricist doctrine seldom
interfered with his keen, visual observation of works of art. His historical at-
tributions, his generalizations on styles in Indian art, are objective Kunstwissen-
schaft of a rigorous type. On the whole, his work is among the most valuable of
76 Croce, B., "On the Aesthetics of Dewey," JAAC, Vol. VI, No. 3, March 1948, pp. 203-
207. Dewey, J., "A Comment on the Foregoing Criticisms," Ibid., pp. 207-209.
77 Maritain, J., Art and Scholasticism, New York 1930. Chapman, E., "Some Aspects of
St. Augustine's Philosophy of Beauty," JAAC, Spring 1941, pp. 46-51. Hart, C. A., "The
Place of Aesthetics in Philosophy," JAAC, No. 6, 1943, pp. 3-11. Callahan, L., A Theory of
Esthetic According to the Principles of St. Thomas Aquinas, Washington 1947.
78 Gilbert, K., Review of Coomaraswamy's "Why Exhibit Works of Art?" Art Bulletin,
Vol. XXX, No. 2, June 1948, p. 157.
all American contributions to the subject he denounced. Aside from his rather
naive and misinformed attacks on modern western art, science, and culture, it
is acceptable to scholars of all philosophical creeds. Likewise, one can disagree
with the basic principles of a St. Thomas, a Hegel, a Marx, an Emerson, or a
Spengler, and yet find much to admire and accept in their incidental observations
and comments by the way.79 Some supernaturalists remain forever rapt in
contemplation of the Absolute, or of a personal deity; others descend from time
to time into the world, and have mundane experiences in common with other
mortals. They can talk of art in its phenomenal aspects, and find a common
ground of discourse with men of other creeds. It is only when they denounce
and try to obstruct what men of other creeds are doing and believe important,
that serious clashes arise. Naturalism in aesthetics has no quarrel with the various
current brands of mysticism, supernaturalism, and immanent pantheism, except
when they seek to obstruct and discourage all approaches but their own. It
welcomes their positive contributions, which are many and rich, to the under-
standing of religious art and of aesthetic and mystical experience as actual
phenomena of human life. They explain phenomena and point out values which
are often ignored by occidental science and lost in modem life. To what extent
these can be achieved along with naturalistic beliefs and attitudes is a question
for the future.
The attacks of such men as Croce80 and Coomaraswamy on naturalism are
based on constant misrepresentation of it, in distorted summaries and quotations
out of context. Naturalism is persistently identified with crass materialism, with
devotion to the crudely sensual and sordid, with antagonism to "the spirit" and
to all the finer things of life, with the idea that art is "entirely physical," and
with every mistaken theory of history and psychology advanced by Victorian
evolutionists. Moderate attitudes are distorted into extreme ones. Any defense
of scientific method in aesthetics is construed as a rejection of all philosophical
aesthetics, or as a belief that beauty can be measured, or that aesthetic values
can be decided by majority votes. Such misinterpretation has been heard less
frequently in recent years.
If and when aesthetics becomes a full-fledged science, it will not cease to be
philosophical.8" It may not be formally classed as a branch of philosophy. Those
working in it may prefer, like present-day psychologists, to have their field
classed as a separate field of investigation, and not as "philosophy of art." But
such divisions are merely for convenience. Every science today still retains
connections with philosophy, its ancient ancestor; it contains areas of com-
paratively philosophical thinking. Those physicists who analyze basic physical
concepts and assumptions such as matter, space, and energy; those who systema-
79 See H. D. Aiken's review (Jl. of Philosophy, August 25, 1948, p. 500) of Cory, H. E.,
The Significance of Beauty in Nature and Art, Milwaukee 1947.
80 Croce, B., "Aesthetics," Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed. He speaks of "a hopeless
attempt to solve the problems of aesthetics, which are philosophical problems, by the
methods of empirical science." For Croce's other work, see Roditi, E., "The Growth and
Structure of Croce's Philosophy," JAAC, Spring 1942, pp. 14-29.
81 Edman, I., "The Challenge of the Arts to Philosophy," Jl. of Philosophy, Vol. XLIV,
1947, pp. 407-413.
206 THOMAS MUNRO
tize current physical theory in a comprehensive way, are philosophical physicists.

Their work is on the borderline between the two realms, and can be classed i
either. So it will be with aesthetics. The diversity of sources from which aesthetics
now derives its information, including all or most of the other sciences in addition
to direct examination of its own data, makes the work of philosophical synthesis
doubly needed. Ideally, the philosopher's role in scientific aesthetics should not
be merely one of receiving and assembling data, but also one of actively initi-
ating and guiding projects of investigation, and of formulating, criticizing,
and revising goals, assumptions, methods, and general conclusions.
18. Divisions of aesthetics, present and future.
While the enlargement of aesthetics is still going on, through the merging of
all these approaches, there is no need to build up definite divisions within it.
Attempts to do so would obstruct what is most needed: great freedom for new
syntheses from different points of view. However, flexible and temporary divisions
are being made on many lines, as necessary steps in marking off limited fields
for researches, articles, books, and college courses. Such divisions are partly
professional and administrative in basis.
As we have seen, the main present division in American aesthetics is between
philosophical aesthetics or philosophy of art on the one hand-i.e., that which
is taught by philosophy professors-and on the other the more empirical ap-
proaches, often classed under art history, the psychology of art, the principles
of art criticism, the principles of literary criticism, the aesthetics of music, etc.
These may last a long time, even after aesthetics as a whole is better integrated,
but more thorough integration will tend to break them down to some extent.
As we have also seen, there is a trend toward comparative aesthetics, em-
bracing all the arts. Within this field, there is a trend toward separating evalu-
ative studies (as in art criticism) from non-evaluative, descriptive studies of the
arts (as in comparison and classification of the arts). Aesthetic value-theory
(axiology) and generalized art criticism, where standards of value are formulated,
interpreted, attacked, defended, and applied, is itself partly descriptive in
method. The descriptive approach includes aesthetic morphology or the analysis
of form and style in the arts. It overlaps the history of the arts, in which the
origin and career of styles are followed chronologically, in relation to other
factors in cultural history.82 Both now discuss the symbolic meanings (conscious
and unconscious) of forms in art. But aesthetic morphology tends to formulate
its conclusions more in logical, theoretical order, as a classification of types,
than in historical order. In morphology and art history, the main emphasis is
placed on objects of art, although these are necessarily studied in relation to
the human beings who make and use them.
In aesthetic psychology, the emphasis is placed on human beings: their psycho-
somatic processes and patterns of behavior and experience, in relation to works
of art. Conclusions are formulated more in terms of general psychology than of
82 Hungerland, H., "The Concept of Expressiveness in Art History," JAAC, Vol. 3,
No. 11-12, 1944-45, pp. 22-28. "Psychological Explanations of Style in Art," JAAC, Vol.
IV, No. 3, March 1946, pp. 160-166. Hassold, E. C., "The Baroque as a Basic Concept of
Art," College Art Journal, Vol. VI, No. 1, 1946, pp. 3-28.
types and historic styles of art. In the logical and semantic approaches to aes-
thetics, emphasis is usually placed on the verbal and other forms in which
concepts, propositions, and inferences about aesthetic phenomena-e.g., value
judgments-are expressed. In the sociology, anthropology, and ethnology of art,
or in approaches to aesthetics from those standpoints, attention is divided
between art products and the human individuals, groups, and activities related
to them. The anthropologist is careful not to regard works of art as museum
specimens, detached from their life contexts; whereas the morphological approach
must do so to some extent, just as biologists bring plants and animals to the
laboratory for comparative analysis of their structure. Aesthetic morphology,
however, is not to be understood as limited to the dead, static aspects of struc-
ture; it includes dynamic aspects analogous to the life activities of the plant
or animal, as described by physiology and etiology.
In aesthetic value-theory, attention is distributed rather evenly between works
of art, human beings, and verbal or other expressions of evaluation. It is con-
cerned, not only with the apperceptible characteristics of works of art, but with
human feelings, desires, emotions, as aroused by them and directed toward
them. It is concerned with standards and judgments of value as phenomena of
individual and social behavior toward works of art. It is concerned with how
works of art fit into various culture-patterns of organized motives, interests,
goals, and moral standards, as more or less conducive or non-conducive to
approved ends.
Neither the psychological nor the philosophical approach is limited to any
one branch of aesthetics. In every branch, psychology is used. In all, there
are comparatively philosophical areas, and comparatively specialized, or super-
ficial ones.
There are many ways of thinking about art which can be roughly grouped
as applied aesthetics. All are still embryonic as subjects, though often energetic
and influential. They apply current knowledge and theory in the practical
management and use of the arts. These include, first, the practice of art; the
use of aesthetics in the production and performance of the arts. It is a disputed
question, how much the artist can and should use aesthetic theory, or learn
about it. Much depends on the type of artist, and also on the type of theory.
In the past, it has not been of much direct help; it may obstruct the imagination,
and it is often ultra-conservative, lagging behind art movements. But artists
use aesthetic theories more than they realize, usually in a careless, uncritical
way. Perhaps the new kind of aesthetics will be of more use to them.
Other lines of practical activity in which aesthetics is being increasingly
applied are education in the arts, and the arts in general education; therapeutic
uses of the arts, especially in psychopathology; the industrial management of
the arts, as in the theatrical, concert, publishing, and building industries; social
and political uses of the arts, for constructive ends in the achievement of social
welfare. Such applications of aesthetic ideas contribute to aesthetic theory itself,
by the experimental testing out of hypotheses, and the gathering of data through
experience.

The American Society For Aesthetics, Wiley The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The American Society For Aesthetics, Wiley The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The American Society For Aesthetics, Wiley The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aesthetics as Science: Its Development in America

Author(s): Thomas Munro

AESTHETICS & ART CRITICISM

AESTHETICS AS SCIENCE: ITS DEVELOPMENT IN AMERICA*

of German aesthetics has reached us largely by way of foreign intermediaries.

6 Munro, T., Scientific Method in Aesthetics, New York, 1928.

and interprets oriental art; the Musee de l'Homme, a variety of primitive

acquaintance with the arts as part of a general education is scarcely discussed

But there are some opposing, reintegrative trends, as in the sound-color-film,

survey of the arts. It deserves to be emulated from different philosophical points

fundamental, broadly comparative, and philosophical areas of Kunstwissenschaft,

22 Hodges, H. A., Wilhelm Dilthey, an Introduction, London 1944.

6. The criticism of art.

26 Langfeld, H. S., "Aesthetics, Experimental," Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th edition.

principles. At times, Kunstwissenschaft rises toward theory in generalizing on

meetings he inspired were hospitable toward a great variety of subjects and

"E.g., H. Kuhn in "Philosophy of Art" and D. H. Parker on "Aesthetics," in Encyclo-

scientific lines, between various fields of investigation. It obscures the important

In terms of psychology, we can now approach the analysis of aesthetic form

48 Ibid., Chs. XXI, XXII, XXIII.

as psychological or psychiatric data.5' Far-fetched, unwarranted inferences are

application of psychology and logic to a certain kind of cultural mechanism for

15. Summary of current trends.

(e) Greater interest in the utilitarian, instrumental, functional aspects of art,

60 Kallen, H. M., Art and Freedom, New York 1942.

of direct initiative in art production by political or ecclesiastical agencies. This

Furthermore, it is felt that at certain times, in the interest of descriptive

fact is constantly mixed with judgments of value. An artist's work, or a style

Even the evaluation by an individual, of a work of art in front of him, is

Most value-theory in recent American philosophy has been so highly special-

71 Henry, W. E., "Art and Cultural Symbolism, a Psychological Study of Greeting

American philosophers, and rightly so. Much as naturalistic aestheticians may

tize current physical theory in a comprehensive way, are philosophical physicists.

You might also like