Alessandro Bertinetto

In this paper I discuss a particular musical practice, the contrafacture, as an interesting case of artistic appropriation. I argue that musical contrafacture, especially in the jazz field, may deflate some biased assumptions that sometimes are taken for granted – mostly in the ontologies of music based on the type/token dichotomy. The case of contrafacture may support the philosophical views endorsing the link between ontology and social-artistic practices and accepting that the ontological constructions presuppose the different practices in which they arise. I strengthen my view of the link between musical artistic practices and musical ontology by considering the nominal ontological paradox generated by improvising on jazz contrafacts.

This special issue of "Aisthesis" explores the ways in which contemporary ontologies have helped to deepen our understanding of music in its various genres and forms of expression: oral, written, and phonographic. Besides investigating the evolution of the ontological status of musical objects in the light of the technological innovations occurred over the last century, the articles collected here investigate the relationship between ontology and aesthetics and address the question of the criteria for the identification and the evaluation of musical works, musical performances, and improvisations.

This article explores the intersection of the philosophy of art, everyday aesthetics, and existential aesthetics, focusing on the role of aesthetic habits in both artistic and everyday practices. Building on my previous work on the aesthetics of improvisation, the article challenges the idea that habits are rigid, uncreative routines. Instead, it argues that aesthetic habits play a crucial role in shaping artistic appreciation and participation, as well as in structuring our daily lives aesthetically. Besides discussing the aesthetic appeal of habitual routines and emphasizing the improvisational nature of habits, the article highlights how art is not separate from life but is deeply embedded in ordinary experiences, transforming and being transformed by habitual aesthetic sensibilities. To sum up, I propose that aesthetic habits, rather than limiting creativity, enable a dynamic, evolving engagement with both art and everyday life.

By thinking on my personal (som)aesthetic experience as a would-be jazz saxophonist, I will argue that the relationship between musician and instrument can exemplify the “extended self” thesis in the artistic/aesthetic realm. As can happen with a human partner, a special affective relationship may arise between human being and instrument and, through repeated practice, the instrument can become an indispensable element of the aesthetic habits by virtue of which we interact with the environment, thus becoming part of the (extended) self. As I will suggest, this special bodily and affective relationship is due to the affordances offered by the instrumental partner and to the expressive experiences that this encounter makes possible. This affective relationship is one of the reasons behind the regret we feel for the destruction or loss of artifacts. Thanks to the assiduity of a somaesthetic relationship, it happens that these objects become extensions not only of the body but also of the mind or “soul.”

By thinking on my personal (som)aesthetic experience as a would-be jazz saxophonist, I will argue that the relationship between musician and instrument can exemplify the “extended self” thesis in the artistic/aesthetic realm. As can happen with a human partner, a special affective relationship may arise between human being and instrument and, through repeated practice, the instrument can become an indispensable element of the aesthetic habits by virtue of which we interact with the environment, thus becoming part of the (extended) self. As I will suggest, this special bodily and affective relationship is due to the affordances offered by the instrumental partner and to the expressive experiences that this encounter makes possible. This affective relationship is one of the reasons behind the regret we feel for the destruction or loss of artifacts. Thanks to the assiduity of a somaesthetic relationship, it happens that these objects become extensions not only of the body but also of the mind or “soul”.

Questo saggio studia i concetti di soggetto, autocoscienza e individuo nell’elaborazione che di essi ha dato Manfred Frank nel corso degli anni ’70-’80. L’autore ripercorre la vicenda intellettuale frankiana, indagando diversi aspetti della Frage nach dem Subjekt” e delineando un percorso che prende le mosse dalla teorizzazione della soggettività debole (che Frank ricava dal primo romanticismo) e che – passando per le discussioni concernenti il problema del “Zeitbewußtsein”, la dimensione estetica della soggettività e l’ermeneutica dell’individualità – si conclude nell’analisi del serrato confronto con gli eredi contemporanei della svolta linguistica in filosofia (dai filosofi analitici a Habermas). Nel volume: “Bibliografia degli scritti di Manfred Frank”; “Introduzione”; “Capitolo primo. Il soggetto ‘debole’ ”; “Capitolo secondo. Temporalità e soggettività”; “Capitolo terzo. L’arte come ‘rappresentazione dell’irrappresentabile’ ”; “Capitolo quarto. Il soggetto come ‘individuo’ ”; “Capitolo quinto. Linguisticità dell’autocoscienza?”

Gli studi qui raccolti mostrano dunque come il riutilizzo di materiale musicale preesistente all’interno di una nuova composizione, a volte frettolosamente condannato come un plagio, produca risultati creativi, realizzandosi in moltissime forme nate dalle più varie radici: si può parlare così di una comunanza di visione tra compositori diversi, o dell’appartenenza (consapevole o inconsapevole) di un certo autore alla propria tradizione, oppure del suo cosciente far riferimento a una tradizione specifica, magari appunto con l’intenzione di trasfigurarla, o ancora dell’applicazione di un metodo creativo consistente nella realizzazione di immagini delle musiche del passato... e questo elenco potrebbe continuare ulteriormente. In generale, ciò che emerge da questi contributi è insomma che ci sono moltissimi casi e contesti in cui «rubare» la musica non è (o non dovrebbe essere considerato) certamente un furto: questo succede quando, come accade molto spesso, «rubare» la musica è non soltanto l’involontaria assimilazione dell’apporto creativo di un altro artista o il modo per veicolare culture o tradizioni musicali che altrimenti potrebbero cadere nell’oblio, ma anche un autentico contributo alla trasmissione creativa del sapere musicale e a nuove ulteriori creazioni.

This paper considers the issue of musical improvisational interactions in the digital era by pursuing the following three steps. 1) I will raise the question of the meaning and value of liveness, and in particular of live musical improvisation, in the age of the internet and discuss some effects of the so called digital revolution on improvisation practices. 2) Then I will suggest that the interactions made possible by the web can be understood as kinds of live improvisational practices and I will briefly outline how such practices also involve musical improvisation. 3) Finally, I will focus on some aesthetic and philosophical aspects of new kinds of live improvisation made possible by recent progress in artificial intelligence research.

The contemporary debate in philosophy of music about the ontological status of musical works seems sometimes to have little to do with actual musical practices and experiences. As Lydia Goehr observed (1992) the danger is here very high that the competing theories remain unrelated to the actual practices they should explain. It is difficult to understand why elaborating complex conceptual systems for answering the ontological question “What is a musical work?” is worthwhile, if, aside from discrepancies between scores, which may be often rectified through philological examination, the identification of a certain performance as performance of a certain work is normally not problematic in the central case. Better and more interesting is to search for aesthetic reasons that can explain why, to which degree, regarding which aspects (and so on), a certain performance is good, bad, exciting, innovative, moving, insipid and so on, and to be preferred to other performances of the same work.

In recent years, the concept of habits has emerged as a focal point within international philosophical discourse, particularly through historical, theoretical, and empirical lenses encompassing and integrating, among others, philosophical, psychological, neuroscientific and sociological perspectives. Habits, understood as dispositions that facilitate individual and social activities, influence everything from mundane daily practices to highly specialized skills. They shape the interaction between organism and en- vironment, playing a pivotal role in personal and collective identity formation, cultural education, social coordination, organization and change, and the manifestation of political engagement. However, the exploration of habits within the realm of aesthetics is a relatively new and intriguing domain. This special issue of “Aisthesis” seeks to bridge this gap by examining the intricate relationship between habits and the aesthetic life.

Gianni Vattimo ha elaborato l’estetica e la teoria dell’arte del «pensiero debole» soprattutto in alcuni articoli pubblicati nella «Rivista di Estetica» (della quale è stato direttore). Parte di questi saggi è stata poi raccolta nella seconda sezione di una delle sue opere centrali, La fine della modernità, sezione intitolata, significativamente, La verità dell’arte. Le diverse questioni discusse da Vattimo sono infatti attraversate dal filo conduttore del problema della verità dell’arte, nell’epoca del nichilismo, della fine della storia e del mondo estetizzato dei mass media. Attraverso una lettura teoreticamente produttiva di M. Heidegger e F. Nietzsche, ma anche – come si vedrà – di certe pagine kantiane, e al contempo “indebolendo” l’ermeneutica di H.-G. Gadamer (ma anche quella di L. Pareyson),Vattimo affronta la questione dell’arte, della sua verità, del suo significato, del suo statuto ontologico, mettendo anzitutto in questione la domanda “che cos’è l’arte?” che molti studiosi, sia in ambito “analitico”, sia in ambito “continentale”, pongono al centro della riflessione estetica. Ha infatti senso, oggi, chiedersi «che cos’è l’arte?», cercando di fornire una definizione che restituisca l’ontos on, l’essenza dell’arte? O è proprio il fatto di presumere la possibilità di offrire una definizione a costituire il vero problema, in quanto tale assunzione presuppone già un determinato modo di pensare il mondo, modo di pensare che, storicamente, si è costituito come la metafisica occidentale? E se nel post-moderno la metafisica occidentale viene decostruita da un pensiero e da prassi vitali che ne mettono in crisi le griglie concettuali, ne sovvertono gli ordini e le tassonomie, esibendone così l’infondatezza, com’è possibile definire, pensare e praticare l’arte e l’estetica, che sono categorie impiantate solidamente nelle strutture della metafisica?

The idea that art is related to a process of creation is a modern one. Through a complex history in the $)th century, which is not without contradictions, the connection between art and creativity was debated in different fields – psychology, epistemology, cognitive science, etc. – and became the target of attacks from marxism and (post-)structuralism. Still, the notion of creativity seems to have conserved its force not only in everyday practices but also in media discourses. In diverse areas – from art theory to epistemology, from action theory to economics, from computer science to psychology (to give only a few examples) – it has regained the attention of scholars as well, as is made clear by the number of recent publications on the topic. However, questions remain as to whether and how the notion of creativity can be used and what kind of conceptual work it can do. Trópos dedicated a call for papers to this topic. Selected papers are published in two special issues. The present one includes essays offering theoretical investigations on creativity. They do this under different, even contrasting, perspectives, with different aims and with di5erent outcomes. Yet, the light they throw on the question at issue provides readers with important, often creative, insights. Through them, readers are invited to think creatively, as well as critically, on creativity and its connections with the arts and aesthetics.

This article explores the connection between habits and the performing arts, arguing that habits are not only fundamental to the practice and appreciation of these arts but also inherently performative in nature. Drawing on insights from various philosophical traditions (including cognitive science, pragmatism, and phenomenology), it examines how habits function within artistic processes as resources for creativity and adaptation. Engaging critically with Noë’s interpretation of the entanglement between art and life, this article highlights the dual nature of habits: as routine practices that scaffold artistic expression and as dynamic, transformative elements responsive to specific cultural and performative contexts. By focusing on key notions such as gesture, style, and rituality in the performing arts, this article discusses the role of habits in aesthetic experiences, highlighting how habits shape both artistic performances and audience engagement. This perspective challenges traditional views that oppose habits to creativity, defending instead the idea that habits are creatively operative in both the performing arts and their reception.

A fine Settecento, quando l’ingresso della musica nel «sistema delle arti» era un evento ancora recente, il fondatore della Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung, Friedrich Rochlitz, individuava il motivo della maggiore discrepanza nei giudizi in materia musica le rispetto alle altre arti nel fatto che essa sarebbe priva di punti di riferimento visibili. «La musica», egli affermava, «nulla ha divisibile (Sichtbares) cui si possano confrontare le sue opere, o da cui possa scaturire una qualche concordanza nelle valutazioni». Mentre per esempio possiamo valutare la differenza di valore tra due raffigurazioni di una rosa perché abbiamo visto la rosa reale, nella musica, argomentava Rochlitz, dobbiamo affidarci alla nostra sensibilità introspettiva, il che rende il compito del giudizio assai difficile. Non intendo qui commentare questo argomento. Piuttosto mi interessa mettere in discussione l’idea che la musica non abbia a che fare con la dimensione del visibile. Anche dando per scontata l’idea che la musica sia un’arte, o un campo di pratiche, legato in modo fondamentale ai suoni e all’ascolto, non è inutile interrogarsi sul contributo della dimensione visiva all’esperienza musicale. Questo articolo presenterà quindi alcune considerazioni circa gli aspetti visivi della produzione e della ricezione della musica. La prima parte concerne la possibilità di visualizzare l’opera intesa come tipo ideale strutturale. La seconda parte discute il ruolo della visione nell’esecuzione delle opere musicali. La terza parte si sofferma brevemente sul ruolo della visualizzazione immaginativa e del vedere performativo nelle pratiche dell’improvvisazione. La conclusione propone un rapido riferimento all’iconologia musicale.

El tema del presente texto es la cuestión del estatuto ontológico del arte y del papel que, con respecto a tal estatuto, juega la relación entre arte y poder político. Para ello voy a traer a colación las obras de dos autores clásicos en este tema: Las cartas sobre la educación estética de la humanidad (1795) de J. C. F. Schiller, y el H. Marcuse de los escritos sobre la dimensión estética, en particular de los ensayos titulados La dimensión estética (1978), Ensayo sobre la liberación (1969) y Arte y revolución, que es un capítulo del libro Contrarrevolución y revuelta (1972). Se trata de textos muy vinculados a las épocas en las cuales fueron escritos, los años sucesivos a la Revolución francesa en el caso de Schiller, y, por lo que concierne a Marcuse, los años de los movimientos libertarios juveniles de protesta, es decir, los años sesenta y setenta del siglo pasado. En ellos, sin embargo, y como en todo buen clásico, aparecen temas y argumentaciones que todavía hoy constituyen una buena herramienta para discutir filosóficamente la relación entre arte, estética y política.

How and why does artistic improvisation matter aesthetically? In this paper I will offer a hypothesis for answering this question: artistic improvisation matters aesthetically, because its aesthetic experience specifies the dynamics of the aesthetic engagement with art in an exemplarily enactive way. This depends, I will argue, on improvisation being paradigmatic for human experience as such. Indeed, focusing on the anthropological dimension of improvisation, it should be stressed that, far from being the exception to regulated behavior, improvisation is the way human beings organise their interactive relations with(in) the natural and social environment.

The expressive nature of musical improvisation is dissected, navigatingbetween two predominant theses: The Transparency Thesis (1) which proposes thatexpressiveness in improvisation transparently reflects the musician’s subjectiveaffectivity, and the Objective-Generic Expressiveness Thesis (2) asserting that ithinges only on the musicpractice’s objective components. This article challenges boththeses, arguing against (1) by emphasizing that musical expressivity transcends a merenatural outburst, and counteracting (2) by highlighting that it is not merely anenactment of objective expressive topoi. Introducing a novel perspective through theconceptual pair of (social) Habitusand (individual) habit, a third stance is defended:the specific expressiveness in improvised music is significantly impacted by itsimprovisational quality, whereby the expressiveness emerges from the manipulationand transformation of an expressive Habitus within the musical performance’scontingent situation.

This essay develops a theory of improvisation as practice of aesthetic sense-making. While considering all arts, references are made to many concrete cases. A topic in vogue since the XX. century, as evidenced by the great philosophers who were interested in it (Ryle, Derrida, Eco among others), improvisation, a felicitous mixture of habit and creativity, norm and freedom, is constitutive of human action. Human practices – including very well-regulated activities such as playing chess, piloting airplanes, or medicine – permit and often require it to varying degrees. Improvisation is also the true source of artistic experience. Consequently, the aesthetics of improvisation result in a philosophy of art: Art was born as improvisation. Yet improvisation has its own aesthetic dimension: that of a "grammar of contingency" in which notions such as emergence, presence, curiosity and authenticity explain the pleasures of joyful adventure and empathic involvement elicited by improvisation.

It is often assumed that habits and aesthetic experiences are fundamentally and irreconcilably opposed. Typically, aesthetic experiences are considered to necessitate non-habitual behavior and to provoke unexpected mental states and extraordinary affective sensations. This article challenges this assumption. Moving beyond potential structural analogies between habitual behavior and aesthetic experience, I focus on two key aspects. Firstly, I argue that the experience of beauty and aesthetic experiences in general actually depend on certain habits, specifically those engaged in aesthetic agency and appreciation, which I term «aesthetic habits». Secondly, I propose that habits have an aesthetic origin, as they virtuously evolve and adapt to their environment. This transformative capacity, along with their ability to resonate with specific situational demands, embodies an improvisational quality that should be encouraged, reflecting the inherently unpredictable and uncontrollable nature of aesthetic experience.

This article explores the role of habits in shapingaesthetic normativity. It asserts that standards of value within aesthetic agency are not immutable, objective criteriadetached from personal engagement in appreciationand creation, nor should they be reduced to mere individualsubjective pleasure. The former stance fails to consider theessential expressivity and creativity at the heart of aestheticpractices, while the latter overlooks the normative frameworkthat underpins the significance, validity, and qualityof aesthetic agency. This framework is represented in theestablished rules of taste, the need for aesthetic education,and the dynamics of aesthetic disagreements. Consequently, effective aesthetic normativity requires abalance: practices must be organized structurally aroundvalues that are, to a certain degree, communally shared, yetflexible enough to incorporate the expressive creativity ofindividual appreciation. This article contributes a nuancedexplanation of aesthetic normativity by elucidating the impactof habits on aesthetic practices.