Semiotics

What is the relationship between signs/symbols (in everyday life and art) and aesthetic experience?

I think that the recognition of signs and symbols in life and art relates to cognitive effort. In order to associate any meaning to symbols when viewed, there must be a higher level of thought and attention than to merely view a piece for form or for sensory perception. I think signs and symbols allow for meaning to be represented or interjected into life and art pieces without being too obvious. It takes effort from the viewer or experience haver to recognize the symbols and signs and to assign them meaning.

According to Dewey, aesthetic affect is found directly in sensory perception. What are your thoughts on this? What if senses don’t align?

This statement kind of throws me. While I believe that sensory perception plays a large role in aesthetic reactions, I also think that cognition can play a large role. I find theories that state only one form of perception (like significant form or sensory perception, as two examples from our recent readings) to be troublesome because I don't think its natural for viewers to isolate their consumption or reaction of artistic works into such categories. I believe aesthetic objects are viewed in a multi-faceted way.

What are your thoughts on Dewey’s position?: “What is not immediate is not aesthetic.” What do you think this means, and do you agree or not? Why/Why not?

Since Dewey believes that aesthetic affect is the result of sensory perception, it makes sense that he sees aesthetics as strictly immediate. I don't agree. I find myself reflecting on aesthetic experiences and having new feelings, discovering different nuances, while not necessarily in the presence of the aesthetic object. In this way, aesthetics are not immediate.

Response #4: The anti-aesthetic

1. Discuss the philosophical, conceptual, practical, and artistic relationships between "aesthetic" and "anti-aesthetic," as discussed in our readings and in-class conversations, and in terms of your own experiences;

One of the most notable aspects of the aesthetic/anti-aesthetic relationship to me is the implication made by the existence of the term "anti-aesthetic" that aesthetic is a positively associated word most likely meaning pleasing or beautiful. This conflicts with my understanding of the concept, but I suppose it does give a clearer distinction to opposing emotional or sensory perceptions of events/objects. Conceptually, both the aesthetic and the anti-aesthetic aim to evoke a certain response from the viewer - the difference is that an aesthetic experience implies that it was aesthetically pleasing, while an anti-aesthetic experience implies that it was not. I found the readings on the anti-aesthetic the most interesting this week, and particularly the one from ____ about blood and other bodily fluids artistic mediums. I connected to this reading because of the universality of these substances, and the near universal reaction to them as an art form. In class, my group discussed how reactions to the anti-aesthetic are possibly more uniform or universal as compared to reactions to the aesthetic, which due to more diverse beliefs and personal tastes, are more varied. I found this topic extremely interesting, and hope to explore it further.

2. Consider their relationship to morality (try to think about the variety of contexts we have discussed and the ways in which morality, or moral values, impacts these categories).

I think the relationship between the aesthetic, the anti-aesthetic and morality is pretty clear cut. The aesthetic is usually regarded as morally sound - or as Hegel said, the expression of one's soul - or as Kant said, a message of divinity. On the flip side, the anti-aesthetic is more likely to cross moral boundaries into the land of the taboo, and thus illicit reactions of shock/horror/fear/disgust/dislike. In this way, works of art containing the anti-aesthetic tend to be controversial, and inspire strong reactions that aesthetic works may not. This may be in response to the viewer feeling that their morals or beliefs were challenged by the work, making them feel insecure, confused, or angry. The most effective example, I think, is Andres Serrano's Piss Christ, which I have mentioned before.

The issue with morality and aesthetics, is, of course, the fact that there is no hard and fast moral code that applies to every living being in the world. Therefore, morality is subjective - both to the artist and the viewer.

Response #3 - Kant, Hegel & Neo-Kantian Musings

1. Role of context & form in aesthetic experience

Both context and form require cognition to recognize and appreciate. It is my opinion that both of these elements can serve to enhance any aesthetic experience. For example, the context and form in which I saw Starry Night by Vincent Van Goh this summer (in the MoMA, 6 inches away from the real thing) greatly enhanced my aesthetic experience as compared to if I had seen it online or in a textbook.


2. Subjectivity/universalism in aesthetic experience

I already sort of touched on this subject in a previous post, but I'll reiterate my thoughts here. This subject is of particular interest to me, I think mainly because I've created art pieces that are extremely subjective and often get negative or confused reactions. I believe that while every artistic object or experience may have the potential to be universally appreciated (there are qualities in it that anyone may find attractive) it takes the right person, with the right set of experiences, opinions and beliefs, to recognize those traits. This echoes Kant's point that appreciating art requires understanding.

3. Relationship between beauty & morality/ethics

I think that the relationship between beauty and morality is much more subjective today than in Kant and Hegel's time. I don't believe in a higher power, and therefore do not view beauty as the representation of the divine, however, when those perspectives were put forth, there was a much more cohesive belief system when it came to religion, deities and morality. An example that perfectly articulates this dichotomy is the work Piss Christ by Serrano Andres.This photograph shocked many viewers because it is apparently anti-Christian or offensive to Christians because it is the figure of Jesus in human waste. However, when looking at the piece objectively, the colors and texture are quite beautiful. This is a moment where morality/ethics/religion differs with beauty instead of agreeing with it.

4. Where do Kant's, neo-Kantian,& Hegel's perspectives fall short?

While Kant, Hegel and Neo-Kantians such as Gerard Genette cover a lot of ground in their musings on aesthetics, I'm left feeling very detached from the process and experience of aesthetics. I would be interested to hear philosophies on how human intervention affects art, more about the creative process, history, art and philosophy as self-reflexive, and more about why aesthetics are important.

Response #2 - Kant & Hegel Today

“How are the aesthetic arguments of Kant & Hegel relevant today, except as something to act against?"



I think the theories and arguments of art and aesthetics that Kant and Hegel discuss are still relevant today. Specifically, both theorists' belief that beauty and art are subjective to the viewer are still widely held. Questions like "what do you get from this work?" or "how do you interpret this painting/sculpture/photograph?" have been frequently asked in many art courses and museum visits I've been a part of.

Another aspect of Kant and Hegel's theories applicable today is the representation of nature or the Divine through art. I think this theory was probably more directly applicable during the theorists' times, when religious thought was more cohesive, and may have taken on a different application in today's more secular culture - but I can still see the influence of the theory today. Personally speaking, and as an atheist, I relate to this theory because I see beauty in the world and artistic expression as the closest thing to divinity or a deity in this world. I would argue that art has taken the place of religion in many people's experiences - which fits into Hegel's view that art is just another way to interpret divinity, much like philosophy or religion.

Response #1 - Kant & Aesthetics

Apply Kant’s understanding of aesthetics and art to your experience of art and aesthetic engagement – In what ways is it viable/helpful? In what ways is it problematic/restrictive?

A particular part of our discussion on Thursday really stuck with me - and that is Kant's idea that beauty is an inherent property or element of anything considered as such. I had a very personal example in my head throughout our discussion, and it's this photo:

Take Care. Kendra Shirey (2011).

I took this photo in March of this year, after struggling with the death of my first love, Michael. While the first reaction to this photo was usually disgust (even a gag reflex effect on my sister), I see beauty and get immense pleasure from viewing it. This leads to me thinking that aesthetically "pleasing" experiences are not determined by the object being experienced, but rather the personal taste and preference of the viewer. In this way, we all bring our own personal aesthetic to any experience - and that aesthetic influences whether we interpret the piece as beautiful, disgusting, confusing, etc.

Though this example seems to be in direct opposition to Kant's theory, in thinking through it further, I've come to another explanation. It's possible that every artistic object or experience holds definable properties of beauty, but it takes a certain viewer to recognize those elements.

For example, the photo of the strawberry viewed in class was beautiful by many standards - it was symmetrical, had rich colors and strong contrast, and possibly most importantly, evoked the senses of the smell and taste of the fruit. As strawberries are widely enjoyed, this experience would be pleasurable for most viewers. However, what if a person with an allergy to the fruit viewed the photo? Perhaps memories of past allergy attacks and the sensation of a closing throat would be brought to mind - making the experience of viewing the photo one of fear and discomfort rather than beauty.

Another example mentioned in class was Goth culture. Many people do not find all black clothing, pale skin and piercings to be beautiful, though a Goth man may think his Goth girlfriend is the most beautiful woman in the world.

My reconciliation with Kant on this point, then, is to concede the fact that all beautiful objects possess inherent qualities of beauty - but those qualities are not accessible by all. It takes the right viewer or participant to recognize these elements (which supports Kant's argument that fine art requires understanding), and consequently find the piece aesthetically pleasing.

In this way, art and aesthetics are still completely subjective, yet hold the potential to be universal.