Aesthetic Qualities and Standards of Taste

For 18th and 19th century philosophers, the study of modern aesthetics consisted of efforts to bring together the subjectivity of aesthetic experience with objective standards of taste. In order to examine whether the aesthetic qualities of artworks are objective or alternatively a figment of the mind and furthermore if there can be objective standards of taste, it is best to compare the aesthetic theories of philosophers Immanuel Kant, David Hume, and English art critic Clive Bell. These three gentlemen have made some of the most famous contributions to the aesthetics of arts, so it is only fair to analyze and compare their views and deduce from them my own definition of aesthetic qualities and standards of taste.

Art critic Clive Bell believes that in each work of art, lines and colors combined in a certain way, particular forms and relations to forms, are what produce aesthetic emotions, and the personal experience of these strange emotions are the basis for aesthetics. Bell refers to these combinations of lines and colors as 'significant form', "the one quality common to all works of visual arts" (Bell 180). This aesthetic emotion, Bell states, is not to be confused with other emotions, however, such as the emotions produced when looking at a picture of a beautiful woman, or seeing a woman on the street and thinking she is beautiful. Many people will say a beautiful woman is just that, but to Bell there is much confusion between sensual and aesthetic beauty. When viewing art there is no way of recognizing a true work of art other than our feeling for it, therefore the objects that produce aesthetic emotions are variable with each individual and it can be said aesthetic judgments are matters of taste. This topic of individual taste leads Bell into discussing the role of the critic. An art critic's job is to point out the values in an art work that others may have overlooked or missed completely. It is impossible for a critic to tell you what a work of art is because again this varies according to each person's individual taste. Alternatively, a critic cannot dispute your aesthetic theories unless they have manifested your aesthetic experience by pointing out a value to the art work that you may have missed. Lines and colors and the aesthetic emotions associated with them are completely subjective. On the subjectivity of an aesthetic experience, Bell says that not everyone will agree that something has significant form, but we can all agree that in order to be a work of art that something must have significant form. One major criticism about Bell's aesthetic theories is that he makes circular arguments, particularly when he speaks of significant form. Bell says that the aesthetic emotion is produced by some aesthetic producing property, but what is this specific property? Bell seems to use the thing he is trying to define in his definition. Additionally, I think it is important to examine Bell's view of how art works survive the test of time. I recall one of our class discussions about what we think will be a great work of art from our generation in one hundred years from now. To me, it is logical to deduce that the great works of art from all time have something in common that defines them as great. Bell's views are that the emotions which great works of art produce are completely independent of place and time. In other words, it does not matter when or where the art was created, so long as it has the sense of significant form essential for all works of art. This view that great works of art are in their own world, so to speak, I find very agreeable.

Scottish philosopher David Hume was heavily influenced by empiricism which is the view that knowledge arises from experience. Hume must be given some credit for the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" because he states that "beauty is no quality in things themselves: it exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty" (Hume 80). To clarify this, Hume later discusses how one person may perceive an object with a deformity as beautiful while another person may be impartial to the same object. It can therefore be said that there is a strong relation between Hume and Bell's subjective views of beauty and taste. This is not to say that aesthetic judgments are completely subjective, though. For example, Hume says "one who judges the seventeenth century Scottish translator, John Ogilby, to be the equal of Milton is as mistaken as one who judges a mole-hill to be as high as a mountain" (Hume 77). To expand upon his views on beauty, Hume says that unless a person has experience comparing the various different kinds of beauty, his opinion is to be taken lightly because he is not well versed in the field. This is sort of like if a child were to critique various paintings, we would undoubtedly question his views, even though it is accepted that this child has his own views. A critic must clear his mind of everything other than the object being presented in order to give a completely unbiased opinion. Therefore, Hume concludes that although the principles of taste apply to everyone, only few people are actually qualified to place judgment on works of art. Certain works of art and performances are aimed at a particular audience, and if a person has other things in his mind this may corrupt his point of view and ultimately result in the loss of the intended aesthetic experience. Hume claims that each and every work of art has an intended purpose or end that the artist has planned, yet we are all affected differently. "A young man, whose passions are warm, will be more sensibly touched with amorous and tender images, than a man more advanced in years, who takes pleasure in wise, philosophical reflections, concerning the conduct of life, and moderation of the passions" (Hume 90). This quotation from Hume is what I believe to be a result of his empirical views, being that an older person has more experience and therefore more knowledge, and will therefore appreciate a more sophisticated work of art. Conclusively, it is evident in Hume's detailed analysis of beauty as the main aesthetic value, that although beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there can be true and biased judgments of it.

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher from the eighteenth century that has contributed greatly to the study of aesthetics with his work 'Critique of Aesthetic Judgment'. Kant was mainly concerned with the judgments of natural beauty, and he believes that beautiful art can only be that when it has the appearance of nature. From Kant's critique of aesthetic judgment it is evident that he was getting at how subjective aesthetic judgments, which produce the aesthetic experience, require a universal agreeability. He later goes on to state that an aesthetic experience is a purely disinterested experience. This means that the person having the aesthetic experience must be free of all desires and needs and have no thought or interest in the object being represented, otherwise the person's aesthetic experience will be distorted or nonexistent. This is where we begin to see a difference between the theories of Kant and Hume. Hume places a large importance on the role of a critic and common sense, in that we can determine that the mountain is higher than the mole-hill by means of comparison. But Kant believes that we should be disinterested in the object being represented, which therefore leads to a more skeptical view on the role of the art critic. This faculty of taste, Kant says, is a function between imagination and understanding in 'free play'. Kant continues investigating universal communicability of disinterested pleasure and says "if, then, the determining ground of the judgement as to this universal communicability of the representation is to be merely subjective, that is to say, is to be conceived independently of any concept of the object, it can be nothing else than the mental state that presents itself in the mutual relation of the powers of representation so far as they refer a given representation to cognition in general" (Kant 108). In being subjective, the representation appeals to human cognition. It is this human cognition that allows for aesthetic judgments and the result of these judgments are ones we can expect other similar cognitive subjects to have. This is how Kant described the judgments of taste. Kant later concludes that these shared judgments of taste are known as common sense.

I personally agree most, but not entirely, with the most recent of the three contributors to aesthetics, that being English art critic Clive Bell. He holds a Kantian view in that when you are aesthetically evaluating a work of art, it is useless to bring any former knowledge of the object being represented into play, as that will distort the experience. However, in contrast to Kant, Bell had a different definition for the form of an object, being the significant form, or lines and colors as one. For Kant, form meant the shape of an object. I also think Clive Bell has clearly defined the role of a critic that makes perfect sense to me. A critic's job is to point out values that the judge may have overlooked, and good critic has extensive experience in the comparing of great art works, and can thus accurately analyze a work of art by his expert knowledge of the arts in general. However, Bell's arguments are once again circular, so I'd have to give Kant credit for his incredibly detailed explanation (though hard to interpret at times) of aesthetic judgment and taste. I do believe the aesthetic quality of an artwork is an objective quality. To back up my argument, I like to talk about how particular works of art become classics, and are praised for hundreds or thousands of years after their creation. If the aesthetic quality is not objective, how is it then that a particular work of art, such as a sculpture from thousands of years ago, can be universally praised while completely independent of time and place? Additionally, I believe there are objective standards of taste which are prevalent when we split up works of art into genres, or common styles in which the art work was created. Each genre will have its fan base (or art world) for which a common objective standard of taste exists.

Thanks to the great philosophical minds of Immanuel Kant, David Hume, and Clive Bell, I have been able to form my own understanding and opinion of the aesthetic qualities of art and standards for taste. Their contributions to the philosophy of aesthetics contain several arguments that are studied and debated to this day, which emphasizes each of their individual genius. After taking this class and studying aesthetic materials from these various philosophers, I have learned to view and judge art at a more in-depth and intellectual level than before, which in turn gives me a greater respect and understanding for art works such as paintings, music, sculptures, performances and poetry.