After reading the informative essay, Aesthetics Introduction by Dr. Ellen Miller, I was pleasantly informed on the definition and history of aesthetics, but was left with a few thoughts and questions of my own:
In the essay, Miller makes the claim that artists (or any human beings for that matter) cannot remain untouched by the past. This is an idea I thoroughly agree with. In plain terms, she’s saying there are no original ideas. Sure, an idea can be innovative, but it’s almost always influenced by past ideas/creations and recycled to make something that appears to be new. Similarly, a concept may be new to an individual, but almost never original to time.
Later in the essay, Miller makes the claim that aesthetics was developed in Europe in the 18th century, which at first read caught me a little off guard. In class last week we attempted to define aesthetics and came to the conclusion that aesthetics = perception. If aesthetics is perception, how could it have only been created in the 18th century? Haven’t we have had the ability to perceive things since the creation of man? For instance, a caveman finishes his masterpiece rock art and turns to his fellow cave-mate and grunts, “So, what do you think? Upon further thought, I settled on the idea that aesthetics has been around as long as humans have, but it’s only the name we’ve put to it so recently.
Then I came across a section that actually discussed the analogy I was previously imagining – cave paintings. According to the essay, “the 18th & 19th century definition of the aesthetics was: objects made by humans to be enjoyed aesthetically. So, Paleolithic European cave paintings, Native American wood carvings are not really art according to some because they were made by people before the emergence of aesthetic experience.” I personally believe art is anything created by a human to express oneself (even if it additionally serves a utilitarian purpose). Just because aesthetics is a fairly new branch of philosophy doesn’t mean art itself is. To put it simply – all poodles are dogs, but not all dogs are poodles.
“Philosophy is often thought of as a kind of systematic reflection of our ordinary commonsense, intuitions, and deeply rooted beliefs and assumptions. This would mean that aesthetics is a reflection on ideas we already have about art.” – This statement from the essay suggests that aesthetic experience is built into us. I agree with this wholeheartedly. Did you ever have a favorite picture in one of your bedtime stories? How about insisting on buying one pair shoes over of another while back-to-school shopping with your mom? If you answered yes to these questions, chances are you’ve had an aesthetic experience that was not learned but instinctual.
This writing raised several excellent points of discussion, many of which I agree with. However, I did not quite agree with the general idea conveyed about artists. It seemed to me, Miller raised artists to a nearly god-like standard. Artists are just regular people who enjoy presenting their personal interpretations of visual perception - they still put their pants on one leg at a time like the rest of the world. Aesthetics is for all people.
“Deciding what we should love and appreciate in this way is a matter of taste, a kind of inner sensation, or feeling.” It is not something you can learn from a book.” - but we can learn how to break down our appreciation and try to understand why we appreciate something.
*** All large sections in italics are directly quoted from the essay which can be found @ - http://users.rowan.edu/~millere/Introduction%20to%20Aesthetics.htm***
Thanks for reading!
-Kim
