Monroe C Beardsley: The Aesthetic Point of View

‘‘THE AESTHETIC POINT OF VIEW’’

the world of artistic expressions has traveled many theories and philosophies regarding the beauty in our cognition of the art world. Art theories and philosophies still grows exponentially in inclusion of all the elements the twenty-first century’s technologically advanced progress brings. So when a creation is judged, how is the assessment of aesthetics justly endorsed as a valuable addition to the art world or as a figment of artistic attempt?

The quest to substantiate aesthetics assessment has given birth to many philosophies in this field. This attempt has been dissected into multiple criteria such aesthetic concepts, aesthetic enjoyment, aesthetic experience, aesthetic value, etc. According to Beardsley, multiple points of view represent different value centered subjectivity. Beardsley with his flair in being open to including constructive criticism poses questions to his own definitions concerning the capacity-definition and he draws three problems with specific adjustments; the problem of falsification, the problem of illusion and the problem of devaluation. The problem of falsification leaves room for negative judgments to capitalize not absence of little value but great value in a work of proposed art. His vivid example of being under the influence of an intoxicated substance could alter the correct way of experiencing a work of art makes the point clear. ‘’But how can we explain the lowering of an aesthetic evaluation and still maintain that these evaluations are capacity-judgments?’ asked Beardsley. This quotation refers to mood of critical thinking in his passages. The problem of devaluation captures the shift in ‘our value grades’ that is largely caused by enlargement of our experiences. So this ‘belated recognition’ opens an internalized evaluation of the grades and understanding of it. The Aesthetic Value ‘‘The aesthetic value of an object is the value it possesses in virtue of its capacity to provide aesthetic gratification when correctly and completely experienced’’ It can be said that in judging the value of a painting, a poem, a composition, a drama or a building the observer needs to comprehend and include that aspect of its quality (with which we judge it) which is due to its capacity to provide aesthetic enjoyment. It is interesting to observe how the definitions of ‘value’, ‘capacity’ and ‘aesthetic gratification’ pull in more observations given through out the text. But after the definitions, the subjectivity of the considerations rejected or accepted when certain judgments are formulated bring us to his next nexus of suggestions. Beardsley writes, ‘’A consideration about an object is relevant to the aesthetic point of view if and only if it is a aesthetic gratification ( formal unity and intensity of regional quality) are present in the object’’. So his examples of a painting being landscape painting being relevant to a judgment marginally contributes to the pre-conditions surrounding the painting like possibly sexual orientation of the painter, writer or composer. The suggestion that the judgment should be exclusive of the subject of the creation gives rise to how historical, cultural aspects of judgment makes subjectivity of the art work stronger. To take an aesthetic point of view requires more than appreciating the skills and interjects the recognition and perceptions. When the question of justification for adopting a certain aesthetic point of view is there, the conflicts with other equally able aesthetics arises. So according to Beardsley the modern approach to broaden the range of adoption by ‘increasing the amount of aesthetic value of which we can take advantage’. This brings us to the observational point of the central task in aesthetic education. He states that this is where there is a rift and observers torn between conflicting ways of redirecting taste. The argument against broadening the amount of aesthetic value tries to incorporate everything as ‘expressive and symbolic’ and the other being the way of love of beauty which he has mentioned is reformist by implication since it seeks a world that conforms to its ideal. But Beardsley’s understanding in how confrontation with these issues does not generate the scope for defining the possibilities and limitations of the aesthetic point of view leaves margins for more contemplation.

His conclusion suggest that the conflict of values and the values used for the aesthetic point of view sometimes terminate adopting only one. And his most noble suggestion has been ’To adopt the aesthetic point of view is simply to seek out a source of value.’ Conclusion The most interesting aspect in reading and trying to evaluate Monroe C. Beardsley’s proposals has been in his expansive adaptation to developments in the philosophical ideas given birth by criticism or change in new aspects of the art world absent from his original philosophy. There might have been absence of elements of feminism, fad fashion, movements but this so-called New criticism that he is supposedly underwriting does respect the art criticism in a positive light.

References The journal of Aesthetics and Art criticism, Volume 63, Issue 2 ( p 175- 178)
Quotes from, The Aesthetic Point of View Monroe C. Beardsley 1982.

References: The journal of Aesthetics and Art criticism, Volume 63, Issue 2 ( p 175- 178) Quotes from, The Aesthetic Point of View Monroe C. Beardsley 1982.