Twentieth Century Aesthetic Attitudes

 

Edward Bullough, Jerome Stolnitz, and Roger Scruton are prominent twentieth-century aesthetic attitude theorists who aim to provide an intuitive definition of the aesthetic attitude and discuss the relationship between the aesthetic attitude and the philosophy of art and aesthetics. Their theories focus on the concept of psychical distance, which is a metaphorical extension of spatial and temporal distance.

Bullough's theory of aesthetic consciousness involves disinterest, or psychical distance, which is the experience of not being emotionally close to or attached to something and not thinking about its practical role. He uses the example of a fog as an example of how a person can direct their attention to its surface features due to proper psychical distance. This distance is the result of putting the perceived object "out of gear" with our practical interests, allowing us to focus on the object itself rather than our practical concerns.

Emotional response is still intimately involved in aesthetic consciousness and experience, but these emotions need to be generalized beyond individual feelings. Bullough also discusses two ways distancing can go wrong: under-distancing and over-distancing. Under-distancing occurs when we are unable to separate our personal interests from what we experience, while over-distancing occurs when we are too emotionally involved or removed from a work.

Spatial and temporal distance are not just metaphors for psychical distance; being too temporally removed can make it difficult to engage with a work, such as in the case of a brilliant Chinese satire. Bullough argues that being too spatially close to a work can make us unable to engage with it properly, as we have to taste and come into direct physical contact with them.

In conclusion, the three prominent aesthetic attitude theorists in the twentieth century aim to provide an intuitive definition of the aesthetic attitude and explain the relationship between the aesthetic attitude and the philosophy of art and aesthetics more generally. By understanding the concept of psychical distance and the potential for misinterpretation, we can better understand the complex dynamics of aesthetic experience and the importance of maintaining a balance between personal and professional interests.

Bullough's aesthetic attitude theory explains why artists are sometimes censored, ostracized, or banned. Artists are better able to distance themselves than the average person, so they see more objects aesthetically. Non-artists may look at the art and see only hypersexualized youth or sacrilegious depictions of holy figures.

However, many have found these implications implausible. Physical closeness to a work does not necessarily preclude the proper psychical distance or disinterested attitude. There are further worries that Bullough only offers a necessary condition for the aesthetic attitude, but he is still an important figure in the development of aesthetic attitude theory. His structured and explanatorily ambitious view set the tone for the aesthetic attitude theories that follow.

For Stolnitz, the aesthetic attitude involves attending to something (anything) in a disinterested and sympathetic way, doing so for its own sake. When we look at something in a disinterested way, we do not look at it as a means (as an instrument) to some other end. This implies that the attitude of an art critic, either amateur or professional, is opposed to the aesthetic attitude. By including sympathy as a criterion of the aesthetic attitude, Stolnitz introduces the idea that the right attitude must take the artwork on its own terms. One needs to ignore personal conflicts and biases.

Stolnitz understands attention, the third major component of his definition, as a kind of alert state. He agrees with predecessors that it is a kind of contemplation, but says that we have to understand contemplation in the right way. Aesthetic contemplation does not involve simply sitting back, relaxing, and letting the mind wander; it involves mental focus and thought, which can manifest itself in physical manifestations such as tightening muscles during a thrilling scene, a foot tapping to the beat, or a tilt of one's head like the figure in a painting.

Stolnitz is a proper aesthetic attitude theorist who argues that we can adopt the aesthetic attitude toward anything, acknowledging that nothing is inherently unaesthetic. He points out that artists often approach ugly or boring objects with the aesthetic attitude and create something beautiful. Since nothing is inherently unaesthetic, nothing in art is at an aesthetic disadvantage to anything in nature, and vice versa.

He also uses the aesthetic attitude to demarcate the bounds between things that count as aesthetically relevant and irrelevant. Thoughts that are compatible with disinterested, sympathetic attention can be aesthetically relevant as long as they do not divert attention away from the aesthetic object. Certain kinds of interpretation can thus count as aesthetically relevant or be ruled out as irrelevant.

Stolnitz and Scruton are two prominent theorists in the field of aesthetics. Stolnitz is an aesthetic attitude theorist who uses his notion of the aesthetic attitude to define aesthetic objects and explain the aesthetic relevance of external thoughts and facts. He believes that aesthetics should not weaken our attention, pertain to the meaning or expressiveness of the object, and enhance the quality of one's aesthetic response.

Scruton, on the other hand, focuses on three main components: pleasure, enjoyment, or satisfaction. This means that while the aesthetic attitude may not always yield pleasure, it is our hope in taking such an attitude that it will. This view should not be mistaken for aesthetic hedonism, which views aesthetic value solely in a thing's ability to give us pleasure. Pleasure should not be thought of too narrowly either, as sad music can afford aesthetic satisfaction, as can paintings of violent scenes.

Scruton also emphasizes the importance of attention to an object for its own sake. He finds the phrase "for its own sake" strange but tries to find the kernel of insight in it. To be interested in something for its own sake involves a desire to continue experiencing it, not to satisfy another, separate desire. This means that if an art collector has a desire to look at a painting, they are interested in it only when there are no other desires that seeing the painting would satisfy.

Lastly, the aesthetic attitude is normative. Scruton sees himself as taking on Kant's view that aesthetic judgments are universal. He believes that the aesthetic attitude is what we express when we make aesthetic judgments, which means that when we call something beautiful, we make an aesthetic judgment and thus express an aesthetic attitude. This view leads to many different aesthetic attitudes, rather than just one special frame of mind or mode of perception that we are in when we have particular aesthetic experiences.

Stolnitz and Scruton both contribute to the understanding of aesthetics and the role of aesthetic attitudes in shaping our perceptions and experiences. Stolnitz's concept of the aesthetic attitude is more explicit and forms the core of his theory, while Scruton's definition of aesthetic attitudes may come closer to the normal meaning of 'attitude'.