"But," I asked myself a number of times, "where are the artists?" Only a handful of the articles were written by artists, and they were either short, or written by fiction and poetry authors. It seems to me that those who actually create art would be in a better position than a philosopher to address certain aspects of aesthetic theory. There are quite a few artists (as far as I can find) who have discussed their artistic philosophies in books, interviews, articles, etc. A book professing to address theories of art and aesthetics would do well to call on a few artists. Of course, this is probably argumentum ad hominem.


Great book on Aesthetics   March 29, 2000
 11 out of 33 found this review helpful

This is more than just the result of the growth in academic specialization. No one comes out of a Ph.D. program in philosophy without some grounding in metaphysics and epistemology, logic and philosophy of science, the history of philosophy and ethics. Metaphysics and epistemology, like logic, are defined as `core areas' of philosophy. History and ethics, while not core areas, belong nonetheless to the `essential perimeter' of the field. It is difficult - indeed, in most programs, impossible - to get a Ph.D. without doing work in these areas. They are areas in which everyone is expected to have opinions and be able to discuss at least the standard problems.

Because the same is not true of aesthetics, the vast majority of philosophers enter the profession with little or no knowledge of the methods or questions of the field. As a result, philosophers generally either ignore issues of art and aesthetics or think of them as having little or no bearing on the central concerns of the discipline. Most systematic philosophers pass entire careers without ever turning their attention to questions of art or beauty. Davidson and Goodman are rare exceptions. Nor is this lack of interest in aesthetics - or the related absence of aesthetics from the pages of the most widely read and prestigious philosophy journals - likely to raise any eyebrows. And so, when philosophy departments sit down to determine the fields in which they wish to hire, it should come as no surprise that it doesn't occur to anyone to think of aesthetics. Marginalization begets marginalization.

So much for the de facto standing of aesthetics. What are we to make of this situation? This leads to the third question mentioned above: what is the proper standing, the true value or significance, of aesthetics?

Perhaps the most common answer to this question is that aesthetics, properly understood, just is philosophically marginal. The view that the de facto standing of aesthetics is indeed its proper standing is held not only by philistines who don't care about art - "this is all aesthetics deserves" - but also by those, like Stanley Cavell and Ted Cohen, who care about art a great deal - as Cohen puts it, "it is here, despite the precariousness of its position, that aesthetics is at its best."