Aesthetics Book

This introduction provided context for some main threads of thought with regards to 1. What is art's purpose, 2. What is beauty, 3. What yardsticks can we actually use to evaluate if an art piece is better than another, complete with even briefer examples using art and literature.

It starts off with Plato's scale of ideal forms > sense experience as a copy > art as even further imitation, hence carrying with it a value judgement, and compares that to Wittgenstein's theory that the satisfaction of art arises from making the link across the gap between the medium itself, replete with conventions eg a halo around religious figures' heads, and the reality it is representing.

We then go forward to the Romantics, in which Tolstoy brings our attention to the expression of art by the artist, vs the evoking of emotion from that expression, and asserts that the quality of art correlates to the quality of feelings it invokes in the audience (more specifically, that moralistic feelings are the most superior of all). In response to Tolstoy, Sheppard makes a distinction between having moral characters in an art piece, vs the moral effects it invokes in the audience (which might be achieved with immoral characters), and questions the supposed moral effects of art, if it merely inspires a passive reflecting attitude within the reader/audience, as opposed to an active do-good call to action.

A difference is highlighted between art as representative -- we are given a situation to imagine ourselves experiencing -- and art as expressive, which stimulates us to imagine a situation for ourselves, eg with a slower tempo and minor scale in music. What is the origin of artistic convention?

I found Kant's theory that true aesthetic appreciation comes from a place of disinterest -- in the sense that there is no desire to make practical use of the object, only to contemplate it -- interesting: did this come about because art has traditionally been associated with the upper classes, ie did the definition come after the fact?

Sheppard ultimately believes, I think, that the richness of interpretation is the key factor in a work's value (the question of judgement: what makes a work better), how long it lasts. She spends the last part of the book arguing for ways to support a particular interpretation of a text, including looking at other works in the same genre, other works by the same author, the original audience's expectations, and the author's intentions, which might not be fully conscious to the author.

The arguments Sheppard puts forth in response to each of the theories she covers often verge on being overly simplistic, especially when she uses literature and/or art as supporting examples. This could be a result of the breadth and brevity of coverage, which does not permit for greater depth and hence insight. As a result I felt a certain sense of wanting more, a deeper dive beyond what frequently seemed like assertions. More analysis, in a nutshell. Perhaps this is unreasonable to expect from an introduction. I did appreciate the clarity in illuminating the nuances of judging and interpreting art, coming from a certain earnestness in making sure every example was understandable by the most art-obtuse of readers.