Question
Asked 3 March 2019

Can an object of art lack aesthetic properties?

Is aesthetics intrinsically linked with objects of art? Or maybe there is some hidden aesthetics in an object of art that people of a certain era do not perceive?

Most recent answer

Derek Allan
Australian National University
Hi Lalihon
Re: "... because the taste of today's youth is very different from the taste of young people 50 years ago."
How do you account for the fact that some works of art last for hundreds of years - e.g. Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Mozart (just confining myself to 'Western' artists)?

Popular answers (1)

Lalihon Mukhamedjanova
National University of Uzbekistan
Of course not. The main object of aesthetics is art. A person aesthetically analyzes what affects all his feelings. But the criteria for accepting works of art from each period will be different, because the taste of today's youth is very different from the taste of young people 50 years ago.
4 Recommendations

All Answers (30)

Karl Pfeifer
University of Saskatchewan
Conceptual Art “is not meant to be looked at aesthetically, but to be thought about intellectually.” — Phaidon’s The Art Museum
Thinking intellectually about a conceptual artwork can still involve aesthetic considerations, whether positive or negative. E.g. some minimalist configurations intended as conceptual pieces can be considered elegantly or inelegantly presented, and these are aesthetic properties. However, there may be borderline cases. Does a conceptual piece consisting simply of a card on a gallery wall and bearing only a title and an artist’s name have aesthetic properties? Arguably, any aesthetic properties would lie entirely in the ideas evoked rather than the object on the wall; so the aesthetic properties would be like those of literature rather than visual art. Alternatively, some would demur from regarding the card as an art object at all. Aesthetic notions flounder when stretched too far beyond their comfort zone; borderline cases, unfortunately, don't betoken unequivocal borders.
2 Recommendations
Can an art object fail to elicit an aesthetic response? Yes, but not because it lacks the potential to do so.
An aesthetic response is an emotional response evoked directly through the senses. The intellect does not intervene. One can experience the beauty, ugliness, balance, dynamic, etc. in something without consciously thinking about what one is perceiving and why. Anything perceptible, by definition, has the potential to evoke an aesthetic response. Aesthetic responses can be described and analysed to determine what principles they appear to follow. However, these principles do not belong to the object as its aesthetic; an aesthetic is not a property in that sense.
It is a matter of convention in the discourse on art to associate an aesthetic with an object or group of objects, but such associations depend on value judgments that differ from place to place and from one time to another. Perhaps an aesthetic is best thought of as a discursive object rather than as an objective property. Hence aesthetics, as a philosophical discipline, involves critical reflection on art, and on beauty, ugliness … etc. in general (there is beauty in mathematics and in nature), and aesthetics involves accounting for the perceptual basis of aesthetic judgments.
I find the on-line Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy a useful first reference point for this kind of question.
1 Recommendation
Marcelo Arce
Universidad UNIACC
In the Theodore Adorno's Aesthetic first chapter we can read: "It is self-evident that nothing concerning art is self-evident anymore". Then if you think that an object is art perhaps it is not and viceverse.
Wayne George Kleintjes
Stellenbosch University
No is my short answer.
Some object can be created, but if it is not seen by someone...nobody will know its artistic value.
And if somebody does see it, we know that artistic appreciation is different in different people.
If you can decrease the number of people evaluating the artistic creation you can increase the chance of finding a no/low artistic appreciation.
Realistically, that can only work if you expose the object one or a few persons who you may know to have no interest in art or are mentally challenged.
In a large cohort random or blind selection of people you will definitely find people with artistic opinions.
Lalihon Mukhamedjanova
National University of Uzbekistan
Of course not. The main object of aesthetics is art. A person aesthetically analyzes what affects all his feelings. But the criteria for accepting works of art from each period will be different, because the taste of today's youth is very different from the taste of young people 50 years ago.
4 Recommendations
Dilbar Salikhovna Kodirova
National University of Uzbekistan
This question has also intrigued classical thinkers.
1 Recommendation
Lalihon Mukhamedjanova
National University of Uzbekistan
Нет, этого невозможно.
3 Recommendations
Karl Pfeifer
University of Saskatchewan
Does this botched restoration have positive aesthetic properties?
3 Recommendations
Derek Allan
Australian National University
I think we should scrap the word aesthetic. It is far too ambiguous to be useful.
1 Recommendation
Karl Pfeifer
University of Saskatchewan
Derek Allan I disagree. It marks off a useful branch of value theory, distinct from moral/ethical value, pragmatic value, and epistemic value. Ambiguity is rampant (and not just in value theory). You might as well scrap the word "good" which is used in all those areas of value theory. (Yes, I also realize "value theory" is itself ambiguous.)
Derek Allan
Australian National University
So what precisely does "aesthetic" mean in your view, Karl? How would you define it?
1 Recommendation
Karl Pfeifer
University of Saskatchewan
I don't think a nontrivial definition (necessary & sufficient conditions) is on the cards. I regard "aesthetic" (and related terms such as "art") as terms involving open-ended family-resemblance concepts. However, their truck with matters of taste would be a paradigmatic feature. Also, one must be careful to distinguish descriptive from prescriptive uses of the terms.
Derek Allan
Australian National University
Thanks Karl. The OED, as I recall, defines aesthetic as having three meanings: relating to beauty, relating to art, and relating to sensuous objects (I can't recall the exact wording for this last one - it is the one that comes via Baumgarten, I assume.)
Now, these three meanings, if we take them seriously, are quite distinct and different. Something can be beautiful without being art and can be art without being sensuous. In my experience, philosophers of art make little or no attempt to deal with this problem. They either ignore it completely and proceed merrily to use the word "aesthetic" (and its derivatives) without further ado - which of course vitiates all subsequent discussion. Or they pay lip service to the issue but then ignore it anyway.
I was once at an ASA conference and got so tired of hearing speakers bandy the word "aesthetic" about without any attempt to specify what they meant by it (I'm sure this still happens on a regular basis - and these are philosophers!) that I spoke up and proposed a ten year ban on the use of the word, explaining why. Oddly enough - and to my considerable surprise - there were several murmurs of agreement.
Karl Pfeifer
University of Saskatchewan
Well there you go. You say "Something can be beautiful without being art and can be art without being sensuous. In my experience, philosophers of art make little or no attempt to deal with this problem." I agree but I don't regard it as a problem. I'm happy to allow landscapes, selected or "found" objects, gourmet foods, wines, mathematical proofs, scientific theories, to have aesthetic properties. Also, I regard ugliness and disgustingness, as aesthetic properties (negative, of course). It's all a matter of taste (pun intended).
Derek Allan
Australian National University
Hi Karl. In this context, it's not really a question of what you individually are happy to "allow" aesthetic to mean. If we went down that road, presumably the word could mean what anyone said it meant, and all academic discussion about its meaning would become useless. (Incidentally, I read an article recently by an "analytic" philosopher of art who claimed that "beautiful" as used by Kant also meant "ugly". Same kind of problem. Time to put away pens and pencils and go home.)
Karl Pfeifer
University of Saskatchewan
Well, my ‘model’ for a characterization (i.e. not a strict definition) of the aesthetic would be Wittgenstein’s characterization of ‘games’. That would allow for several distinct paradigms (which may or may not each be definable in the strict sense) linked by family resemblances. I see the category of the aesthetic primarily in contrast to such categories as the moral, the epistemic, and the pragmatic. If those categories are not problematic, then an acceptable negative characterization might be possible. There are of course areas of intersection. Vagueness and borderline cases will also have to be acknowledged.
Derek Allan
Australian National University
Hi Karl
I think W's language games thesis is under a large philosophical cloud these days. Frankly, I was never convinced by it. There is an obvious unanswerable question: where and why do the "games" stop? Where, in other words, is the outer limit?
Moreover, it leaves the philosophy of art in a hopeless situation. Pick up almost any book on the subject and you'll find the word "aesthetic" used in key parts of the argument. If the meaning of the word wafts about in a cloud of so-called "language games", any argument will self-destruct instantly.
Interestingly, that's very often the case whether or not W and his games are invoked. The term aesthetic is frequently employed in key arguments but never defined (except, on odd occasions, in vague ways). Personally, when I encounter that in a book on philosophy of art - it usually occurs in an early chapter - I just put the book down and consign it to the useless category.
Karl Pfeifer
University of Saskatchewan
"When I hear the word 'aesthetic' ..., I release the safety on my Browning!" -- (almost Hanns Johst) 😂👌😉
Derek Allan
Australian National University
Well, so do I actually, for the very reason I've been explaining - it is a "trap word", because it is inherently ambiguous, but - and this is the important point - it is treated so often in the philosophy of art (aka aesthetics) as if its meaning were self-evidently clear.
So, phrases such as the following are endlessly trotted out as if their meaning is clear: aesthetic properties, aesthetic response, aesthetic aims/objectives, aesthetic achievement, and so on and on. They are not remotely clear and one has only to check the OED or some other quality dictionary to understand why. In everyday speech it doesn't matter much ("he has no aesthetic sense") but in the philosophy of art it is a major and elementary blunder (unfortunately committed again and again...)
Karl Pfeifer
University of Saskatchewan
J.L. Austin on the vicissitudes of language: "Fact is richer than diction."
Derek Allan
Australian National University
Hi Karl
Not really sure that I follow...
DA
Karl Pfeifer
University of Saskatchewan
Derek Allan Isn't your complaint that the term "aesthetic" has become vague(r), more ambiguous, and ∴ useless? An Austinian point might be that those who use the term are overreaching in an attempt to encompass (rich) phenomena that it was not designed for.
Derek Allan
Australian National University
Hi Karl,
No, that wasn’t my point. I was speaking specifically about academic usage of the word aesthetic. It has three quite distinct meanings (which I listed), partly as a result of its history. Academics (e.g. in professional journals and conferences papers) have an unfortunate tendency to ignore this, thereby gravely weakening their arguments, since one never knows which meaning/s is/are in play. This is just one of the reasons why, in my view, modern aesthetics never makes any progress: issues are always blurred by a loose usage of key terms such as aesthetic.
I also made the point that in colloquial speech the word aesthetic is often used very loosely, meaning little more than “attractive” or something of the sort. That doesn’t matter much in my view. One can’t expect everyone to be philosophising all the time.
Karl Pfeifer
University of Saskatchewan
Derek Allan I guess much in a similar vein could be said about the word "art". This paper might interest you:
Derek Allan
Australian National University
Hi Karl. Thank you. I will have a read. (From a brief glance at one page, I am not likely to be a sympathetic reader...)
Derek Allan
Australian National University
Hi Karl, I’ve read through this article – or I should say “skimmed through” because so-called “analytic” aesthetics (of which this is an example) bores me senseless. The writers beg all sorts of questions, make loose assumptions galore, and provide, I think, just one example of a work of art, although works of art are ostensibly the topic under discussion. (I’m fascinated, by the way, by their concept of “conventional art”. Fascinated but not in a good way…)
I long ago decided that analytic aesthetics is probably worse than useless: it is a modern-day version of the worst kind of medieval scholastic philosophy. If the general purpose of aesthetics and the philosophy of art today is to interest students in art and give them a deeper understanding of it (and what else can it be?) analytic aesthetics is an abject failure, kept alive solely by the indulgence of certain universities.
I was going to give you a comment on each paragraph, but the irritating pointlessness of the exercise repelled me. Why dignify this kind of stuff by comments?
Thank you for giving me the link all the same. It’s interesting to see how little this brand of aesthetics has progressed over the years, how it is still regurgitating the same old stuff, how unadventurous it still is in its thinking, and how trapped it remains in its little “analytic” box.
Derek Allan
Australian National University
Hi Lalihon
Re: "... because the taste of today's youth is very different from the taste of young people 50 years ago."
How do you account for the fact that some works of art last for hundreds of years - e.g. Shakespeare, Michelangelo, Mozart (just confining myself to 'Western' artists)?

Similar questions and discussions

Are there SECRET agreements between the USA and Russia regarding Ukraine?
Discussion
21 replies
  • Vladyslav HoncharenkoVladyslav Honcharenko
US blocks Ukraine from firing British missiles into Russia - https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/us-blocks-ukraine-from-firing-british-missiles-into-russia-9wq6td2pw What is the logic of this restriction? Is the Biden administration "rotten"? What moral right does the USA have to do this with the LIVES of Ukrainians? The USA guaranteed the security of Ukraine according to the Budapest Memorandum! The whole world is watching and comes to the conclusion - USA CANNOT BE TRUSTED!!! Or it is CORRUPTION at the highest level! I don't want to believe that Putin "bought" not only Trump, but also Biden administration? Ukraine's attack on Russia's Kursk region (to reduce shelling of Ukrainian border towns) broke secret agreements between Russia and the US?
Psychology of art
Discussion
4 replies
  • Daniele ZavagnoDaniele Zavagno
What is needed for a proper ’science of art’?
In his book L’Osteria dei dadi truccati (Loaded Dice Tavern), Massironi (2000) claims that all psychologist interested in art tend to study it from the theoretical perspective that characterizes their work and beliefs. This, of course, is quite normal. The question, however, is whether such a pulverised approach is fruitful in addressing the complexity of Art as a phenomenon.
From another perspective, Zeki, the father of neuroaesthetics, attempted to address relevant questions, such as the very nature of art and why it is so significant to us. According to Zeki, the only way to properly address those important issues is through a neuroscientific approach. However, considering what we know and still don’t know about how the brain processes art, are we sure to be on the path to find the answers we are seeking?
There is of course a third path, experimental aesthetics, the goal of which is to study the aesthetic experience. The question one might want to ask is whether all aesthetic experiences are related to art, or even whether the enjoyment of an artwork is always reducible to an aesthetic experience (could there be more than mere preferences and the appraisal of beauty, harmony, etc.?). Finally, would it make sense to combine all possible approaches? Would this allow to achieve a proper science of art? Is this even feasible from an epistemological perspective?
The goal of this workshop is to shine a little light upon these topics and to prepare the basis for future meetings, the topics of which would revolve around the feasibility of a science of art and, eventually, its goals, perspectives and methods.
What is needed for a proper ’science of art’?
Discussion
1 reply
  • Daniele ZavagnoDaniele Zavagno
What is needed for a proper ’science of art’?
In his book L’Osteria dei dadi truccati (Loaded Dice Tavern), Massironi (2000) claims that all psychologist interested in art tend to study it from the theoretical perspective that characterizes their work and beliefs. This, of course, is quite normal. The question, however, is whether such a pulverised approach is fruitful in addressing the complexity of Art as a phenomenon.
From another perspective, Zeki, the father of neuroaesthetics, attempted to address relevant questions, such as the very nature of art and why it is so significant to us. According to Zeki, the only way to properly address those important issues is through a neuroscientific approach. However, considering what we know and still don’t know about how the brain processes art, are we sure to be on the path to find the answers we are seeking?
There is of course a third path, experimental aesthetics, the goal of which is to study the aesthetic experience. The question one might want to ask is whether all aesthetic experiences are related to art, or even whether the enjoyment of an artwork is always reducible to an aesthetic experience (could there be more than mere preferences and the appraisal of beauty, harmony, etc.?). Finally, would it make sense to combine all possible approaches? Would this allow to achieve a proper science of art? Is this even feasible from an epistemological perspective?
The goal of this workshop is to shine a little light upon these topics and to prepare the basis for future meetings, the topics of which would revolve around the feasibility of a science of art and, eventually, its goals, perspectives and methods.
Call for Book Chapters
Discussion
1 reply
  • Fawad NaseerFawad Naseer
It is our pleasure to invite you for submitting a chapter for inclusion in the Edited book titled “Bridging Global Divides for Transnational Higher Education in the AI Era” to be published by IGI Global Publishers. The submitted proposal should have ½ page and include sufficient details to be useful for the Transnational Higher Education (TNE) Educators, Professionals, and
Readers having TNE or Higher Education experience in terms of AI or have related interest from basic to recent advance.
Bridging Global Divides for Transnational Higher Education in the AI Era" explores the transformative impact of Artificial
Intelligence (AI) on transnational higher education (TNE), enhancing accessibility and inclusivity in learning worldwide. Across
25 chapters, the book delves into AI's capabilities to transcend language barriers and develop globally relevant curricula, along
with practical applications, ethical considerations, and innovative solutions. It serves as a foundational resource, encouraging
new research, guiding policymakers and educational leaders, and providing educators with methods to improve teaching and
engagement with diverse student bodies. This publication is intended for a broad audience, including academic researchers,
education leaders, technology innovators, teachers, and advanced degree students, positioning itself as a key text for those
leading global educational innovation.
• Introduction to Transnational Higher Education
(TNE)
• Role of AI in Enhancing Access and Equity in TNE
• Developing a Global Curriculum of TNE with AI
• AI and Multilingual Transnational Higher
Education
• Cultural Sensitivity and AI
• Infrastructure Requirements for AI in TNE
• AI-Driven Analytics for Student Tracking in TNE
• Ethical Considerations in AI Usage of TNE
• TNE Faculty Training on AI Tools
• Innovative Teaching Methods with AI in TNE
• AI and Student Collaboration in TNE
• Assessment and AI in TNE
• AI in TNE Administrative Tasks
• Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality in TNE
Learning
• Sustainability and AI in Transnational Higher
Education
• Inclusivity in AI Design of TNE
• Future Technologies and Their Potential in TNE
• Challenges of Implementing AI in TNE
• AI and Lifelong Learning
Dr. Fawad Naseer
Head of Computer Science & Software
Engineering School (Nationwide)
Beaconhouse International College (TNE)
Pakistan
Dr. Cheryl Yu
Co-Founder, Connected International
Education, Advisor of International
Academic, TNE
United Kingdom
Dr. Rhytheema Dulloo
Assistant Professor
School of Management,
Hindustan Institute of Technology and
Science (Deemed to be University)
Chennai, India
Dr. Munshi Muhammad Abdul
Kader Jilani
Assistant Professor
Human Resource Management
Bangladesh Institute of Governance and
Management (BIGM), University of Dhaka
(Affiliated), Bangladesh
Ms. Momina Shaheen
Programme Leader/Lecturer
Department of Computing, School of Arts
Humanities and Social Sciences, University
of Roehampton, London SW15 5PJ,
United Kingdom
Please contact the below Editors for any queries:
• Dr Rhytheema Dulloo dulloo.rhytheema@gmail.com
Scan to Submit
Proposal Deadline 9th June 2024
Proposal Acceptance 23rd June 2024
Full Chapter Deadline 1st September 2024
Review Result 13th October 2024
Final Acceptance 10th November 2024
Final Chapter Deadline 17th November 2024
Invitation
Scope of Book
Queries Submission
Topics Editors
No Publication Fee Involved

Related Publications

Article
Full-text available
This paper deals with two questions. The first: are titles of artworks constitutive of what such works are? The second: are titles essential properties of artworks? The answer is given by the central thesis: the title slot for a work of art is never devoid of aesthetic potential; how it is filled, or that it is not filled, is always aesthetically r...
Book
Rounding off decades of exploration into the various ways in which buildings and urban sequences make an impact on the mind, The Dynamics of Delight emphasizes the qualitative aspects of form and space, providing designers with an analytical framework in which to evaluate projects on an aesthetic level. In laying the foundations for an appreciation...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.