Richard Marc Shusterman

Durch eine Untersuchung der verschiedenen Konzeptionen und Elemente, die im Begriff der ästhetischen Erfahrung angelegt sind, und durch die Unterscheidung der mit ihnen verbundenen Logiken und Ziele versucht der Beitrag, zu einem besseren Verständnis der vielfältigen semantischen und evaluativen Dimensionen dieses Begriffs zu gelangen. Dabei wird zudem für eine Anerkennung der ästhetischen Dimension sexueller (oder erotischer) Erfahrungen plädiert, die gewöhnlich aus dem Bereich der ästhetischen Erfahrung ausgeschlossen werden.

Preview: Beyond Baumgarten, the modern field of aesthetics can be seen as an attempt to go beyond the limits of older philosophies of beauty, sublimity, and taste in order to engage a much wider domain of qualities and judgments relating to our pleasurable and meaningful experiences of art and nature. The defining strategy of Hegelian aesthetics is to take the essence of aesthetics beyond the limits of nonconceptual sensuous experience and to celebrate instead the idea of art as purveying the very highest spiritual truths, albeit in a somewhat sensuous form. The progressive revolutions of artistic forms and styles that define twentieth-century art similarly reflect the same play of dynamic movement in which art and aesthetics advance by challenging and overcoming the determination of established boundaries posited by prior aesthetic theory and practice. The limit-defying trend in aesthetics is evident in the continuing unsuccessful attempts by analytic philosophy to provide a satisfactory definition of art that will perfectly define its extensional limits by either providing its core essence or some formula that will select all and only those objects that are genuine works of art. Like other Wittgensteinian and pragmatist-inspired philosophers, I have criticized such compartmentalizing definitions of art, not simply for their failures to provide perfect extensional coverage of all the diverse works of art, but also for these theories’ explanatory poverty in explaining art’s meanings, purposes, functions, and values. One of the problems with traditional definitions of art is that they attempt to define something that is not a natural kind but a historically constructed field composed of rather diverse practices. These diverse practices employ a variety of different media and issue in a variety of different works of art that appear to belong to different ontological categories.

Contemporary literary theorists of the deconstructionist bent have often complained about a gulf between philosophy and literary criticism, and they have issued plaintive pleas to bring the two disciplines into closer contact, even if not into complete union. Thus Geoffrey Hartman in his famous deconstructionist manifesto complains: “The separation of philosophy from literary study has not worked to the benefit of either…. If there is the danger of a confusion of realms, it is a danger worth experiencing.”

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Art and ReligionRichard Shusterman (bio)IArt emerged in ancient times from myth, magic, and religion, and it has long sustained its compelling power through its sacred aura. Like cultic objects of worship, artworks weave an entrancing spell over us. Though contrasted to ordinary real things, their vivid experiential power provides a heightened sense of the real and suggests deeper realities than those conveyed by common sense and science. While Hegel saw religion as superseding art in the evolution of Spirit toward higher forms that culminate in philosophical knowledge, subsequent artists of the nineteenth century instead saw art as superseding religion and even philosophy as the culmination of contemporary man's spiritual quest. Artistic minds as different as Matthew Arnold, Oscar Wilde, and Stephan Mallarmé predicted that art would supplant traditional religion as the locus of the holy, of uplifting mystery and consoling meaning in our increasingly secular society dominated by what Wilde condemned as a dreary "worship of facts."1 By expressing "the mysterious sense... of existence, [art] endows our sojourn with authenticity and constitutes the sole spiritual task," claims Mallarmé.2 "More and more," writes Arnold, "mankind will discover that we have to turn to poetry to interpret life for us, to console us, to sustain us. Without poetry, our science will appear incomplete; and most of what now passes with us for religion and philosophy will be replaced by poetry."3Such prophecies have largely been realized. In twentieth-century Western culture, artworks have become the closest thing we have to sacred texts, and art almost seems a form of religion with its prophetic breed of creative artists perennially purveying new gospels and its priestly class of interpretive [End Page 1] critics who explain them to a devotional public. Despite wide recognition that art has an important commercial aspect, art sustains its cultural image as an essentially sanctified domain of higher spiritual values, beyond the realm of material life and praxis. Its adored relics (however profane they strive to be) are sacredly enshrined in temple-like museums that we dutifully visit for spiritual edification, just as religious devotees have long frequented churches, mosques, synagogues, and other shrines of worship.In advocating a pragmatist aesthetics I have criticized this otherworldly religion of art because of the way it has been shaped by more than two centuries of modern philosophical ideology aimed at disempowering art by consigning it to an unreal, purposeless world of imagination. Such religion, I have argued, is the enemy of pragmatism's quest to integrate art and life, a quest exemplified both in the classical Western notion of the art of living and some Asian artistic traditions, where art is less importantly the creation of objects than the process of refining the artist who creates and the audience who absorbs that creative expression.4There is good reason, however, why this sacralization of art should remain so powerfully appealing despite the widespread recognition of art's mercantile dimensions and worldly concerns. The reason, I believe, is that art expresses very deep meanings and spiritual insights that religion and philosophy once most powerfully provided but that they now no longer convey in a convincing way to most of today's secular populations throughout the world. So, in this essay I would like to reconsider the art and religion nexus from a different angle. I wish to explore the idea that art provides a useful, even superior, substitute for religion, one that is free from the latter's many disadvantages and that should be vigorously championed as an alternative that could eventually free our transcultural world from the hostile divisiveness and backward-looking attitudes that religions have inspired and instead lead us toward greater understanding, peace, and harmony.But a contrary yet equally interesting hypothesis likewise demands consideration: that art cannot be separated from religion, that rather than a real alternative, art is simply another mode or expression of religion. Or, to put it in a provocatively suggestive paraphrase, art is simply the continuation of religion by other means. If this hypothesis has merit—indeed, even if there is simply some deeply indissoluble link between art and religion—then we cannot simply look progressively past religion...

T.S. Eliot, no less a distinguished as a critic than as a poet, began as a student of philosophy. As a young man he planned to take up philosophy as a career, and his later critical theory was deeply influenced by his philosophical outlook. This book, written by a professional philosopher trained in the analytic tradition, is the first philosophically rigorous and systematic account of Eliot's views and development. Tracing this devolpment against the mainstream twentieth-century philosophy, both Anglo-American and continental, it defends Eliot's critical theory against the dismissive attitude of the poststructuralists and Marxist, illuminating not only the work of Eliot himself but the state of literary theory today.

In responding to the three creative interpretive discussions in the symposium on my book Philosophy and the Art of Writing, this paper explores the different styles of philosophical discourse and their role in the practice of philosophy as a way of life that extends beyond the discursive and that combines self-cultivation with care for others in the ethical-aesthetic pursuit of living beauty. In advocating this aesthetic model of philosophical life over a purely therapeutic model, I suggest how the former can incorporate the latter's concerns for spiritual health and liberation. In developing my response to the symposiasts while elaborating on the themes of my book, I consider issues of ineffability, creative performance, embodiment, truth, heroism, vulnerability, possession, art, spirituality, love, and liberation.