Fisher, Ch 3: Concept of Aes Value
- Dis aes value and historical value; aes value and functional value
- Historical value
- Properties that make artifact historically imp
- E.g., works of art tell us about society in which made
- Art-Historical value: Historical interest from per of history of art
- Facts about artwork that gives it scholarly interest and thus
historical importance justifies preserving and studying it
- Fame, popularity
- E.g., Mona Lisa "surely no greater (in aes value) than a
hundred of other paintings by Leonardo, yet more famous"
- Influence/impact on later artists
- E.g., Beethoven symphonies (9th and last done in 1824)
dominated thinking of most 19th century composers
- Originality
- 20th century verbal experiments of James Joyce
- Work could have all three and lack aes value
- Could be popular or influence for wrong reasons (not aes value)
- Could be unpopular in its time and great aes value (work of
Bach neither popular nor influential, but incredible musical
insight and genius)
- Could even be original and low aes value
- The first symphonies not great as symphonies
- First opera Dafne historically important but not a great
opera
- Nature of Aes Value
- Whatever value artwork has in itself
- Problem with intrinsic value ruling out relational value
- Whatever value comes from normal app of work of art (e.g.,
listening to music, reading novel, etc.)
- Aes value founded on direct experience of the artwork; Unlike
historical kn (facts about art)
- This does make it subjective in a sense
- Not saying can properly respond to art w/o great deal of
historical knowledge
- Aes value that value that fundamentally justifies art
- Functional value of much art
- Art important because of the useful function it served.
- Question: Now that these works no longer fulfill original function do
we correctly understand them?
- E.G.: Religions function of most 15th century paintings; they are
religious pictures
- For spectator then best picture were ones that most effectively
conveyed religious themes
- Is the aes value that comes in our exp of art be the same aes value as
encountered by earlier appreciators?
- (Sometimes yes, sometimes no)
- Contemporary appreciators can find aes value in works that were
meant to be app in a very dif way.
- Bach's Passion had religious sig at time but wows listeners now as
much as back then and for dif reasons
- BENTHAM'S VIEW THAT AES VALUE IS JUST PLEASURE
- Fisher takes it as a kind of skepticism about aes value
- Bentham's prejudice aside, pushpin is of equal value with music and
poetry
- For Bentham, aes value is pleasure it gives appreciator and if pinball
gives someone as much pleasure, then its as valuable as art (and in the
same way?)
- Essentially his view is that pleasure is the only intrinsic value
and if art has IV its value must be pleasure.
- Mill tried to develop notion of higher and lower pleasure
- If art's value is pleasure, then can't elevate it above the other
enjoyments (TV, football)
- Putnam's view of value of art: Art enlarges out capacity to
experience the world
- Exp of great art has after effects, enlarges the imagination and
sensibility enlargement of our repertoire of images and
metaphors and integration of them with mundane
perceptions/attitudes
- Someone else suggests art gives "life enhancement" to the
spectator
- Why isn't this a functional value?
- Fisher says this view entails that art has truth and meaning
other things don't have
- Fisher says that Putnam's view takes art as representational
("mimetic theory")
- Thus doesn't work well for music and other nonrep arts forms.