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.