Arnold Berleant

In my recent book, Art and Engagement (1991), I develop the idea of aesthetic engagement as central to the appreciation of art. The human contribution to the constitution of the "work" of art, I claim, is a critical part of appreciative experience. This contribution, however, is easily misread into the history of the idea of experience that has dominated Western philosophy since the seventeenth century, a history that sees experience as an inner, personal, subjective affair. From this vantage point, the metaphysical implications of an aesthetics of experience seem to lead resolutely to idealism.1 'Experience', however, is a troublesome term precisely because its meaning is equivocal. Despite its association with philosophical idealism, experience allows a range of interpretations in various contexts. Even though aesthetic experience is often understood subjectively, it is mistaken to think that it allows of no other alternative. These comments raise a complex of issues, two of which I want to consider here: first, the metaphysical significance of experience and, second, the bearing of art on metaphysics.

Interest in aesthetics has grown in recent years, yet since Virgil Aldrich’s Philosophy of Art appeared in 1963, there has been no small, general survey that could be joined with primary sources to introduce students to the field. Several such books are now emerging on the scholarly scene, with Professor Eaton’s Basic Issues in Aesthetics the first to appear. This is a helpful development, for the teaching of general aesthetics has subsisted in large part on various collections of primary materials and on a very few extended comprehensive works, most notably Beardsley’s Aesthetics, Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism, and it has prospered mainly from the ingenuity of teachers of aesthetics.

From the earliest times art has been integral to human culture. Both fascinated and perplexed by the arts, people have tried, since the age of classical Greece, to understand how they work and what they mean. Philosophers wondered at first about the nature of art: what it is and how it relates to the cosmos. They puzzled over how art objects are created, and extolled human skills that seem at times godlike in their powers. But perhaps the central question for such philosophers as Plato and Aristotle concerned our involvement with art: the response we have to beautiful things, the moral and salubrious powers of art, and perhaps most of all, the power of art to transform and transcend, leading us into a condition of enhanced perception that may be wondrous, dangerous, and at times overwhelming. The classical age displayed a richness of discussion that centered on art as an activity: an activity that is at once cosmic, social, and individual; an activity that brings understanding of a sort; an activity that may be salutary and even exalting, as in Aristotle's celebrated discussion of tragedy and its cathartic effects. Since the eighteenth century, however, this has changed. Questions about art have shifted to the idea of experience, paralleling the great change in the focus of philosophy from matters of ontology to those of epistemology. In place of starting from an examination of the nature of the universe and moving to the human position in the order of things, we have come to realize, since Descartes and Kant, that all inquiry has its inception in a human locus. Now, at the end of the twentieth century, we have finally recognized that the human factor in every kind of awareness and knowledge is structurally unavoidable. Art has become both a symptom of this change and a standard for grasping it.

Aesthetics is fundamentally a theory of sensible experience. Its scope has expanded greatly from an initial centering on the arts and scenic nature to the full range of appreciative experience. Expanding the range of aesthetics raises challenging questions about the experience of appreciation. Traditional accounts are inadequate in their attempt to identify and illuminate the perceptual experiences that these new applications evoke. Considering the range of environmental and everyday occasions aesthetically changes aesthetics into a descriptive and not necessarily celebratory study of sensible experience, for it must now accommodate a complete range of negative as well as positive values. Th is paper develops an analysis of the multiple dimensions of environmental sensibility

Arnold Berleant gilt als einer der Gründerväter der environmental aesthetics, zu der er seit den 1970er-Jahren veröffentlicht hat und weltweit Vorträge hält; er war jahrelang Präsident der International Association of Aesthetics und ist emeritierter Professor der Long Island University. Sein Aufsatz in dieser Polylog-Ausgabe nimmt zunächst seine Grundgedanken zur Ästhetik als Sinnlichkeitslehre wieder auf. Daraufhin gründet Berleant die »ästhetische Politik« auf der Idee eines »Gemeinguts der Wahrnehmung«, zu dem etwa Luft, Wasser oder Raum gehören; jeder Mensch hat Anspruch auf die Wahrnehmung dieser natürlichen Ressourcen, die sauber bleiben sollen, um seiner Gesundheit und seinem Wohlbefinden zu dienen. Aus dieser Perspektive wird die »Kooptation der Sinnlichkeit«, anders gesagt: die kommerzielle und profitorientierte Aneignung dessen, was im öffentlichen Raum wahrzunehmen ist, scharf verurteilt. Die Ästhetik als Wahrnehmungslehre ist nicht von einer engagierten Ethik und demokratischen Politik des Gemeinwohls zu trennen.

This paper proposes a radical re-examination of the foundations of modern aesthetics. It urges that we replace the tradition of eighteenth century aesthetics, with its insistence on disinterestedness and the separateness of the aesthetic, and its problematic oppositions, such as the separation of sense from cognition. In their place it appeals to a more process-oriented, pluralistic account, one that takes note of varying cultural traditions in aesthetics, that recognizes the aesthetic as a complex of many forces and factors, and that considers the aesthetic as part of a complexity of values, including moral, practical, social, and political ones. It urges, further, an aesthetic-based criticism, not only of the arts, but of culture and knowledge. Central to this account is the idea of aesthetic engagement, which not only recognizes and extends the many connections of and in aesthetic experience, but invites our total involvement as active participants.