Ae, well.
At the start of Art Matters, Peter de Bolla acknowledges the trickiness of defining the word “aesthetic.” He tries to spell out his meaning of the word from the outset:
I consented to this definition as necessary to the rest of the book and moved on. Later, though, I felt forced to withdraw that consent.
De Bolla discusses artworks—painting, music, poetry—in such a variety of terms and interpretations that I could no longer figure out what the word “aesthetic” meant. He talks about enlightenment and knowing with Wordsworth, interpretation and intellectualism with Gould, and a plethora of other things, which began to render the a-word meaningless.
In the conclusion de Bolla returns to the theoretical underpinnings of the Introduction:
What distinguishes affective or aesthetic experiences from others is the fact that they are occasioned by encounters with artworks. This proposes a mutual definition, so that what elicits aesthetic experience is an artwork and an artwork is defined as an object that produces aesthetic experience.
I consented to this definition as necessary to the rest of the book and moved on. Later, though, I felt forced to withdraw that consent.
De Bolla discusses artworks—painting, music, poetry—in such a variety of terms and interpretations that I could no longer figure out what the word “aesthetic” meant. He talks about enlightenment and knowing with Wordsworth, interpretation and intellectualism with Gould, and a plethora of other things, which began to render the a-word meaningless.
In the conclusion de Bolla returns to the theoretical underpinnings of the Introduction:
An aesthetic experience is made out of its own singularity. [….] Once again the paradox of the aesthetic raises its head. The aesthetic is both grounded and not grounded in the conceptual, both singular and universal, evaluative and descriptive. But I do not regard these difficulties and paradoxes as anything other than attempts to delimit the distinctiveness of the category of the aesthetic. It is precisely these paradoxes and difficulties that need further exploration and elaboration.This, six pages from the end of the book. (And yes, he italicizes every “aesthetic” throughout). Delimit something that has only the vaguest of premises to begin with? I guess I just don’t see how this followed from what he had been doing before. It’s probably more due to confusion and lack of education on my part, to be honest, but it made for slow, dense reading. De Bolla’s analyses of his chosen artworks were fascinating, but I am still in the dark when it comes to aesthetics and forging my own responses to my own aesthetic experiences.

4 Comments:
I'm not surprised you're in the dark! He sounds a clever man, but his prose is pretty tortuous, if you don't mind my saying. It has a touch of the emperor's new clothes about it... I'm wondering if there's really anything there. Of course defining aesthetics is an immense task and of necessity highly complex. But still.... I prefer Adorno on aesthetics, or Hal Foster on art.
I don't mind your saying so. In fact, that's exactly what I was thinking as I was reading it! I'll have to check out those names.... any particular works you'd recommend by them?
I'll look up the Adorno for you, but as for Hal Foster, well, I really liked The Return of the Real (liked the chapter of the same name especially), and he also wrote a book called Compulsive Beauty about Surrealism that's fab. I believe he's got together with three other art theorists (including Rosalind Krauss, I think, can't remember the others) to produce recently a kind of definitive book on art theory. That would certainly be worth a look.
Thanks! I think a trip to the library is in order....
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home