Jennifer A. McMahon

(1956 - 2023)

Ormerod and Chronicle reported that optimal solutions to traveling salesperson problems were judged to be aesthetically more pleasing than poorer solutions and that solutions with more convex hull nodes were rated as better figures. To test these conclusions, solution regularity and the number of potential intersections were held constant, whereas solution optimality, the number of internal nodes, and the number of nearest neighbors in each solution were varied factorially. The results did not support the view that the convex hull is an important determinant of figural attractiveness. Also, in contrast to the findings of Ormerod and Chronicle, there were consistent individual differences. Participants appeared to be divided as to whether the most attractive figure enclosed a given area within a perimeter of minimum or maximum length. It is concluded that future research in this area cannot afford to focus exclusively on group performance measures.

In this clearly written and well argued book, Mark Johnson presents a theory of embodied cognition and discusses the implications it has for theories of meaning, language and aesthetics. His pragmatist foundations are on show when he writes that ‘The so-called norms of logical inference are just the patterns of thinking that we have discovered as having served us well in our prior inquiries, relative to certain values, purposes, and types of situations’ (p.109). Johnson’s particular contribution to theories of meaning and language is that he grounds ‘inference’ even at the most abstract level in patterns of sensorimotor experience (p.279). He rejects traditional analytic theories of language on the basis that their central concept of reference is grounded in an erroneous and unfounded distinction between transcendent universals and bodily particulars (p.89-91).

There are a number of problems associated with the classic notion of beauty understood as an experience of perceptual form. These problems are that there is an apparent incompatibility between beauty’s objectivity and subjectivity; and an incompatibility between the two self-evident theses that (i) there are no principles of beauty and (ii) there are genuine judgements of beauty. There is also the problem of explaining the possibility of a disinterested pleasure. To solve these problems I draw upon the work of Glyn Humphreys & Dietmar Heinke (1998) according to whom the processing of ‘between-object’ relations draws upon view-dependent primitives and the processing of ‘within-object’ relations draws upon view-invariant primitives. I argue that if what we experience as aesthetic form or beauty is some kind of play on the processes involved in processing within-object-relations during the course of perceiving certain objects, then the apparent problems of beauty would be resolved. I speculate that perhaps the perception of certain objects employs perceptual principles in an unprecedented way or in a way which epitomizes their normal operation. The idea is that when perception is employed in such a way that our attention is drawn from the object recognized to the experience of perception as something like a solution to a problem (that is, to the experience of the construction of within-object relations), then we experience what we know of as aesthetic form and beauty.

The idea of a ‘global’ concept of art might suggest a transcending of the categories which would locate an artwork relative to one place and one time. Is this possible? If we answer in the negative, this suggests that a global concept of art is not possible, but on the positive side, the significance of the particular is kept intact. If we answer in the affirmative, then a global concept of art is possible, but we lose the very aspect that defines art: its particularity. I will argue that we can limit the damage all round by construing art in a way that allows the particular features of an artwork’s time and place to feature within the broader placeholders of a global concept of art. According to the global concept of art I will present here, art is a normative system. Its place holders could be a narrative, representation, expression of emotion or perceptual experience but what in each case explains our engagement with it as art rather than say a scientific experiment or an historical record is the particular kind of reflection that the form of the work gives rise to. Hence the form of the work or the form that our engagement with it takes is what qualifies the narrative, representation, expression of emotion or perceptual experience as art. The damage referred to above is not eliminated entirely though. The norms in a system are taken on board through day to day interaction with others who engage these norms. As such, when art is construed according to such systems, the meanings it embodies as art may be inaccessible to those not acculturated into the relevant norms. A theory of art for a global concept of art, then, must identify in what sense art is a normative system and it must provide some account of how we engage with it when we engage with it as art. For the former, I draw upon philosophical analyses of moral judgment, and for the latter, I turn to that much maligned, indeed bogus, divide between the aesthetic and the antiaesthetic. I conclude that a global concept of art is one that maintains the integrity of the artwork, and that writing is art historical rather than merely historical when it is conducted from within the culture that grounds the art under discussion.