Enhance Productions

A Philosophical Thought Experiment in How Human Expression is Linked to Existence

The aesthetic. Aesthetics are a subdivision of philosophy that focus on the theories behind artistic expression and reception. Specifically, aesthetics explore the theories behind beauty and taste. You can evaluate an aesthetic, whether object, sound, setting, or experience, based on your own perception and knowledge of the artist/composition of the art. Aestheticism relates to the perception and sensory effects of art, and therefore can be applied to virtually anything. Yes, I know this is a basic definition of what we do on our phones everyday, consuming endless content thrown up by society and social media. I want to establish a baseline, however, to break down the process of appreciating art, so as to accentuate the parallel between an artist’s basic instinct to create and the universe’s natural inclination to expand. Art is a source of infinite expression for the human consciousness. It is essentially, in my opinion, a highly subjective theory and methodology (look at the revolutionary effects of Elvis, Black Sabbath, and Tupac, to name just a few) of philosophy. Art has a methodology of philosophy unique to each object of aesthetic experience, or art piece. Is it just me who finds herself drawn to obsessively reflect on the subjectivity of humans? Or is art a fascinating example of human subjectivity being used as a means for universal connection?

“In all judgements by which we describe anything as beautiful, we allow no one to be of another opinion,”

(Kant, 1790 Kritik der Urteilskraft [English: Critique of Judgement])

To commence, I’ll offer a proposition, asserted in 1790 in Kritik der Urteilskraft (English: Critique of Judgement) by Immanuel Kant. Where he states, “In all judgements by which we describe anything as beautiful, we allow no one to be of another opinion,” (Kant). This statement describes the relationship we have with our own likes and dislikes. When we are asked about the reasoning behind our aesthetic opinions (why we like said painting, sculpture, song, book, movement, experience, etc.), we will typically try to pluck out material characteristics of the object in question. We may even ask ourselves, ‘What is it about this specific color painted in such a way that it makes my heart and the back of my eyelids remember the first time we shared laughter with one another?’ We will ask ourselves what is wrong with the painting, before we ask what is wrong with ourselves. Trying to pry something tangible out of the sharp focus on the aesthetic, rather than defining our physical experience. In some ways, too, we may utilize our body’s ability to communicate sensory effects, as we search for  the words to describe our immediate and enduring appreciation, like speaking with our hands, dancing, or changing the timbre of our voice. It is because the aesthetic is so personal in its mystique that we return to Kant’s quote on judgment when defining any aesthetic. For, if one does not have judgment, then they are unable to make the judgments necessary to experience aestheticism; they are unable to form biases in taste and preference. To go a step further, if one does not have judgment, one does not have individuality. (Bear with me now.) This line of thought is dependent on the fact that we are certain these feelings of satisfaction and appreciation, defining the aesthetic, arise specifically from the aesthetic. The immediate effect art has, in its undiluted form, is the basis of aestheticism that I am building upon. In this basis, it is understood that everyone is solely responsible for what, to them, qualifies as art or as aesthetically pleasing. This assessment of judgment assumes these beliefs to remain faithful and never change, except by the passage of time. We are autonomous beings who make intentional decisions based on our intrinsic and utterly unique likes and dislikes. 

 Philosophers have tried to categorize the general sensations associated with aestheticism as society has continued to push forward, and pleasure isn’t going anywhere. While they’re still catching up to the myriad of sensations associated with the digital age of social media, so far anything aesthetic can be described as being either beautiful, sublime, ugly, elegant, gauche, grotesque, absurd, tragic, or comedic. Immanuel Kant recounts in his Critique of Judgment that, “It is only in society that it occurs to him to be not merely a man,… [because we do] judge him to be [he] who is… apt to communicate his pleasure to others, and [to be he] who is not contented with an object if he cannot feel satisfaction in it in common with others,” (Kant). Kant dropped some serious philosophical rizz in his 80 years of being a Taurus. I interpret this quote as him, basically, saying that while you have a personal preference, it remains without value unless society (subjective to your environment) is able to recognize its quality. And that we’re watching you drop the ball if you’re living your best life with bad taste (which is a WILD thing to say. I do not agree. BUT I can build upon this->). While we must allow ourselves to remain subjective in taste, objectively forming opinions outside of societal judgment and within our personally subjective judgment, we cannot ignore the fact that we all (with our preferences and peculiarities) live within a society. Society, just like art, relies on judgment and the validity of judgments to sustain its laws and general guidelines. To legitimize one’s own judgment for the purpose of societal-based living, means one must then also take into account the judgments held by others. This game of “judgment tag” never stops, which is why it is so important to remember one’s own autonomy when determining the significance of another’s judgments. <For example: Racism is wrong.> With this understanding, when looking at your own preferences, you can compare your aesthetic to others to glean the societal value of your taste. Theater critics got to get their start somewhere.

Judgment, as a crucial characteristic of the human mind, is required in the synthesis of an aesthetic experience. Yes, we’re still on the judgment topic. Judgment is  required in human interaction, societal living, and life. By this standard, it is impossible to talk about the production or reception of the aesthetic without acknowledging judgment’s role in both parts of the process. The object at the forefront of our perception (the art) is inherently created, not outside of or distanced from, but for the part of the ‘rational human’ (in reference to Kant*) that makes judgements. The human condition to perceive and judge can be looked at as being preyed upon by the artist, who purposefully and with direct intention conducted the birth of their creation. Therefore, when an artist is working, judgment is being intellectually rendered into a conversation. One of perception, intellect, and experience, conveying an open-ended message to their audience and society, despite any societal comprehension limitations present. Such will inevitably change as society moves from the age in which the artist began the dialect. However, should the work remain unaffected by time, then the conversation will carry on. 

The act of creation required in aestheticism is something like a demonstration in open-ended dialectics. The question posed being a most primal and innately human query: how does this affect the self in abeyance? ‘This’ being whatever is affecting us or making us feel something outside of ourselves on any given day. I relate this phenomena to Hegel’s inference where he described such an experience being a ‘distanced appreciation’. Distanced, not because we are separating ourselves from our feelings, but because we are removing our id, super ego, and ego from the conversation (as described by Freud*). Distanced from external judgment but reunited with the internal mind’s eye. A distanced appreciation of art, wherein the consumer can comfortably assess their subject while implementing facets of idealism*, brings us into a theoretically meditative state. Maybe the real phenomenon of aestheticism is the ability of certain objects, defined as art, to instantly separate ourselves from all ties but our human connection, allowing us to deeply consider whatever is in front of us. That instant appreciation brings with it objectivity. Afterward, when trying to describe our experience to the company of society, we may even feel the need to defend our objectivity. 

“No no, it’s not because my grandmother used to play ABBA all the time when I was little that I am really resonating with it now. Their voices are just so soft and melodic and brassy at the same time. It makes me feel sad, and also whimsical and want to dance,” 

– Sidney Floyd

Really, just having had time to re-engage with our ego and identity, the consciousness begins to integrate the subjective feelings of our societally-based mind with the, initially, objective aesthetic experience. Any descriptions regarding the definition of art will be infinitely subjective. In leaving that moment of objectivity, you pull yourself out of its gravity. We can have experiences of objectivity, but even when we look back and give them analyses we are allowing our subconscious to re-absorb this content, which is subject to our own ego and identity. In order to describe the aesthetic object from memory, as accurately as language allows, our initial perception is judged by the same part of our brain that experiences the aesthetic. The same brain that breaks down and appreciates the intrinsic value of a moment in which its perception was mesmerized, and subsequently transformed into an amalgamation of objective and subjective thought. Is being subjected to a moment of objectivity, or experiencing a meditative wave of calm, a strict quality of the aesthetic?

“[T]he external objectivity into which these forms are introduced through a sensuous and therefore particular material, makes these forms fall apart from one another independently, to become distinct ways of their realization”

– Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Thomas Malcolm Knox