Brady on Disinterestedness

Ch 1

• WHAT IS DISINTERESTEDNESS (DI) (from ch 1)
• Trad view says DI is nec for aes app and others (E.g., Berleant) disagree
• Berleant's critique of disinterestedness: rejects detachment, distancing and passivity: "We perceive envs from within, not looking at it but in it; nature as a realm in which we live as participants, not observers; not disinterested contemplation but total engagement, sensory immersion in nature"
• DI has a role in both in moral phil and aes (not unproblematic role)
• Disinterestedness (in aes): not indifference or lack of interest, but involves an aes interest of contemplating (aes qualties of?) object for its own sake
• "Foregrounds app of aes qualities"
• DI= Interest/attention to aes qualities alone
• Aes app is a "free liking" arising from mere contemplation of object for its aes qualities
• Stolnitz: "DI and sympathetic attention to and contemplation of an object of awareness for its own sake"
• Which interests/purposes ruled out by Aes DI?
• Don't approach object to use it as a means to some end
• Utilitarian and practical concerns and self-interest are "backgrounded"
  • Admiring the deer's rump because it is a good source of meat
  • Appreciating the sound of snowmobiles because it means more business (or because you are lying there hurt and need them to evacuate you)
• Nor using object as means of sensory gratification
  • Going to listen to the sound of the waterfall because the relaxation and pleasure it will bring calms you down (you have a paper to present and your are nervous)
• Personal preferences are "backgrounded"
  • Liking the leaf because it is your favorite color?
• Personal "preoccupations" are not allowed, and this "frees up the mind to be open to aes qualities"
  • Look how freely that butterfly flies, while I'm locked into this lousy relationship
• Nor interested in discovering its functions or use
• Do these veins on the leaf serve for water transport?
• Brady seems to take this back (soften this claim) with humanized landscapes/items
• App architecture or humanized landscapes (ag lands) my require focusing on their functions
• Moral "purposes" or "desires"
• KANT (AND BRADY?) RULING OUT MORAL PURPOSES 129
• Liking or valuing an object because it serves a moral purpose (because it is morally good)
• Valuing something as morally good is connected to purpose and desire
• Such valuing may not be aesthetic valuing (or relevant to aes valuing) but I don't see how it is a purpose or interest
• Its a type of DI valuing
• Aes app is not valuing an object because of its capacity to fulfil some end/desire, whether that be self-interested ends or other ends (including moral) 130
  
• HOW IS MORLAL IV DIF FROM AES IV?
• Moral valuing is also intrinsic valuing so how dif from aes intrinsic valuing?
• Env. ethics often argue that respect for nature is valuing nature for its own sake or for what it is in itself
  • This is Brady's point that ethics is also DI
• Intrinsic valuing of X: The world would be better if X exists than if not
• This sounds like how Brady is defining aes attention
• Perhaps the difference between moral intrinsic valuing and aesthetic intrinsic valuing is that:
  • Moral attention involves motivation and commitment to action and protection not just contemplation and enjoyment (as with aes intrinsic valuing)
• Though some (Carlson) argue that positive aes valuing entails that one wants the thing to continue to exist: X is beautiful so destroy it is a contradiction
• Aes intrinsic valuing focuses on aes qualities, whereas moral intrinsic valuing does not?
  • But one might morally value something because of its great aes value (because of its aes qualities): Morally value the creek and want to protect it because it is peaceful
    
• DI does not rule out personal relations to aes object: Ch2
  • Does DI mean that one's own peculiar relation to an aes object is an inappropriate part of one's aes response to it? (First mountain I climbed? Where I learned to kayak?)
• No!
• Personal experience can be part of aes exp (67 & 74)
• Personal and individual experience may permissibly be brought to the aes appreciation (67)
• Cow example: "As I hear cows munching I am reminded of first time walked through pasture, when pleasure tinged with fear of cows"
• DI requires we recognize certain meanings as personal and separate them from more generalizable interpretations. 74
  
• DI helps get some impartiality and potential universality thus avoiding extreme, anything goes, subjectivism Ch 2
• Aes judge not merely subjective ("everyone has own taste" and beauty in eye of beholder), as it is disinterested (DI), and thus potentially universal
• DI gets one a degree of impartiality;
• Free oneself from personal desires or preoccupations in relation to the object, better able to judge object on its own terms
• But individual personal experience are allowed as relevant
• DI keeps aes judge from arbitrariness and subjectivity of personal desires (and other practical aims)
• But not from the subjectivity that results from bringing in personal exp to aes app
• DI helps with universality: One way aes judges don't express personal preferences
• Approach flower DI (and assume others do too), can expect agreement from others when judge it beautiful.
• This is too strong given that some personal exp are okay and if one's aes response is based on in individual experience not shared by others, then it may diverge
• Personal desires and preoccupations not okay?
• But personal/individual experience are okay? (As long as communicable?)
  
• DI AND PLEASURE (Ch 2?)
• Why isn't aes app sensory gratification, an instrumental use of aes object?
• Because sensory gratification involved in aes pleasure is the result of contemplating object for own sake, and this aes pleasure is a byproduct of this and not goal sought (hence aes response is not aimed at mere sensory gratification)
• Confusion between two kinds of pleasure:
• One interested, other disinterested
• Interested pleasure: Hike in woods for relaxation and enjoyment it brings and because we get such pleasure out of the exp, we pursue it; Seeking the pleasure is what motivates the pursuit of recreation
• DI pleasure: Such aes pleasure results from intrinsic valuing (Levinson):
• 129: The feeling of pleasure which grounds aes judge
• Pleasure in object is aes when it comes from apprehension and reflection on object's individual character/content for itself
• Pleasure in aes app does not play motivational role but is merely a by-product of the experience
  
  
• DISINTERESTEDNESS (=DI) Ch 5

• DI applies more to nature app than art app 128
• With natural aes, concerns of politics/society are less relevant than with art
• Not if we are approaching env. aes with goal of using it for nature protection!
• Many artworks have social aims and insisting on DI might limit scope of app of them
• This is because DI means not seeking to discover a things function or use (and hence purpose or intention?)
• Functions of natural objects are more the concern of ecology than aesthetics
• For art, often a social aim is expressed in it and so we attend to artwork to discover its message ( (it is our responsibility to do so)
  • Makes less sense to app nature in this way as it is spontaneous and so aes app is freed from such responsibility
  • True no intentional artist conveying a message in pristine nature (might be in human designed nature)
  • But if we see only a few individuals of a species this may convey the information that it is going extinct, or is rare and this seems relevant to aes app?
• Serious issue about how this fits with app of human impacted landscapes (some of which have been damaged intentionally and some unintentionally)
  
• BRADY DOES RELATE AES/ETHICS IN A WAY
• Wants a conception of nature's aes value that is consistent with adopting a moral attitude toward nature (129)
• If we ought to protect env, then we must adopt a moral attitude toward it and aes app of nature must be "consistent" with such an attitude
• Note: This is different from saying aes app must be a moral attitude
• So need alternative to hedonistic (pursuit of pleasure) aes app of nature, where nature is used for our pleasure (instrumental value)
• Need aes app that values nature in itself in virtue of its aes qualities
• DI aes app provides this by showing how aes valuing of nature "backgrounds personal pref and utilitarian concerns" and foregrounds app of its aes qualities"
• While this is not turning aes into ethics, it is rejecting the total independence (autonomy) of aesthetics from ethics by putting ethical constraints on the type of app that is appropriate



• DI IS NOT A "BLANK COW-LIKE STARE"
• Blank cow-like stare = inactive perceptual contemplation
• many aes exp are active and exciting, not still and restful
• Carlson contrasts the blank cow-like stare with a responsive, alert, vigorous focusing and discriminating attention, where our capacities of imagination and emotion are keyed up to respond to object
• DI falsely thought to involve contemplation that is
• Distancing and detached
• We detach or distance ourselves from our concerns to be in a better position to app object for its' qualities
• Passive
• Result is passive contemplation of object
• Abstract, rather than embedded
• False view that everything about individual subject is set aside (values, beliefs desires, life exp) and this disconnect one from situation and context
• This leads to insensitivity to individual circumstances and detail of aes situation
  
• DI DOES NOT INVOLVE FORMALISM (AES FOCUSES ONLY ON FORM)
• Falsely thinks that detachment from personal concerns involved in DI means detachment from everything except form
• FORMALISM EXPLAINED
  • Only form is relevant (not content)
    • Only lines, colors, and shapes rather that what artwork is about (content)
  • Clive Bell: in aes app "we need bring with us nothing from life"
• Aes response is cut off from kn of artists intention, history of artwork, and life exp generally
• Only thing relevant is aes emotion resulting from exp of "significant form"
• Critics of formalism argue (among other things) that this closes off aes from the rest of our exp
  
• BRADY'S RESPONSE TO THE BLANK COW-LIKE STARE AND FORMALISM OBJECTIONS
• Brady in response argues that Aes DI
• Does not require setting aside who we are, but only what we want
• Needn't be impersonal or detached from self
• Can relate the object to ourselves, but apart from our wants and desires
• No conflict between DI and engagement
• Aes attention involves active use of capacities of perception, thought and imagination
• Aes attention is rarely passive
• For example, aes attention involves "free play of imagination"
• Im is free in sense of not constrained or determined by concepts of the object
• One can "play with" the perceptual features of aes object
• You know that the moose can't fly, but you imagine it doing so?
• Brady response: Imagination's freedom tied to object; no room for self-indulgent fantasy
• Distancing in DI not creating distance between oneself (subject) and object, but between oneself and desires and needs that might get in way of app object for own sake.
• Detachment of DI not cutting oneself off from one's exp, but setting aside util interests in the object
• Example of Juror
• Impartial juror must background personal biases towards defendant and not let them affect her judgment of guilt/innocence
• He's arrogant and she's particularly sensitive to arrogant people
• Juror uses own personal experience to help her:
• She's been robbed before and thus relates to the situation of the victims and this might help her better judge if they are telling the truth
• Example of a counselor whose own experience as a supportive member of his family enables him to better help and understand his clients
• But should be DI, so his own needs and desires don't get in the way
• A counseling session may make him think about his own relationship with is partner but he must set them aside and work them out on his own time
  
• SOME ASPECTS OF THE SUBJECT ARE PRECLUDED BY DI AND OTHERS ARE NOT (AND IN FACT CONTRIBUTE TO AES RESPONSE)
• Some aspects of subject, some individual personal features are compatible with DI and others not
• Butterfly example
• App butterfly, not detached from who you are
• Take delight in graceful weightlessness of its fight
• Due to gaiety I see expressed in it
• Or due to personal associations I relate to exp: I identify with the freedom of its flight
• Own exp shapes and deepens app of aes object
• Shaped by who I am and deepens meanings I attach to it
• Still DI because though these associations shape her response she is not "preoccupied by them"
• Still value butterfly for its grace and beauty and not for an end it might serve
• Example of being preoccupied by personal associations?
  • Identify with the freedom of butterfly's flight
• Because you are a woman dominated by a man and caught in an unhealthy relationship you can't escape
• Still DI if it lets you delight in butterfly's flight
• Not DI
• if it saddens you because you are comparing its freedom to your own
• if you stop thinking about butterfly and about your husband
• if you go out to look at the butterflies for the purpose of making you feel better about your enslavement to this man
• DI can also help sustain attention to aes object
  
• BRADY'S RESPONSE TO CLAIM DI ENTAILS FORMALISM
• False that only form is relevant, imagination, personal associations, emotions, even kn can also be relevant.
• Crowder quote 136
• Taking pleasure in way things appear to the senses
• Might depend on having taken a certain path through life
• May be that lots of factual kn and practical considerations impinge upon our pleasure
• Such factors not required however for us to enjoy beauty (are contingent, not nec)
• We don't have to take account of them in app formal qualities for own sake
• All this shows is that formalist aes app does not require kn, not that aes appreciation which is more than mere app of form does not require some kn!
• Kn of background of aes object (e.g., function of whale's blowhole)
• Not nec for app shimmering gray skin across its back
• Contingencies such as kn of whale bio could be fed into aes app.
  
• DISINTERESTEDNESS AND KNOWLEDGE (137)
• Concepts can be part of background of app, but don't base our aes judge on those concepts
• Aes app of beauty of a rose not arise from facts about its bio functions, but from perceptual-imaginative reflection on its color and form
• Still concepts like rose and nightingale may be present and form backdrop of aes response
  • Vague and "indeterminate" concepts okay?
• What it is to be a rose/nightingale in terms of function or purpose-facts about their existence-does not determine app of beauty
  • More precise and "determinate" concepts are not (unless in background?)
• Aes judge or experience may permissibly conceptualize something as being an instance of a kind (and bring in concepts that way)
• Such concepts okay if in background


• Imagine reading information on board on a nature trail and feeding it into our aes app to supplement perception
• Our app is not grounded in or determined in any direct way by that kn
  • Why not?
• Rather the kn may enable an expansion of perception of aes qual
• Is Brady saying that we may not take aes delight in a fact or piece of kn about an object, but that the fact has to feed into and change or affect perception to be relevant?
• Butterfly example: Her app of a butterfly can be shaped also by background kn-knowing that butterfly emerged from a caterpillar in a cocoon may increase app of vibrant colors if it enables me to recognize contrast of colors before and after metamorphosis
• Kn becomes legit part of aes app because adds meaning to perceptual qualities
• So kn to be relevant need not change the perception but give it a dif meaning?
• Or allow us to better appreciate the perception (notice more in it)
• Kn as handmaiden to perception (or something related)
  • It would seem Brady might also allow knowledge/though as handmaiden to imagination or emotion
• Examples of knowledge, information, thought that is not relevant/appropriate and conflicts with DI
  • While science can supplement aes response, it can also dominate app and divert attention from aes qualities (shift our focus away from aes app)
    • Valuing butterfly as a good specimen of its species, this is valuing it in virtue of its bio rather than aes qual
      • What is an example of this?
  • Science is grounded in wonder and curiosity and aims at acquiring kn
    • Aren't wonder and curiosity aes attitudes?
  • Aes app is grounded in experience of aes qualities and has no explicit aim
    • Not for knowledge, nor for sensory gratification
• Modified Landscapes (including cultural landscapes) and DI
• Human intentionality (purpose and function) play a role in such landscapes
  • And def of DI rules out consideration of these sorts of factors
• Ag lands example
  • Not inconsistent to say DI applies here as well
  • Kn may be part of backdrop of response
  • Implicit kn (common sense or visible from furrows in field) that land is farmed
  • See it as fertile and bountiful
  • Don't require concept of purpose of object for our aes judgment
    • Why not? Unless one knew that the land's purpose was to produce food, how could one judge it as fertile/bountiful?
  • Contrast with Carlson's idea that in app ag lands there purposes and functions (as with architecture) are absolutely central to proper app of them
• More generally, when app objects that are both natural and artefactual in origin, this does not involve making a direct connection between aes qual and its creator
• As move toward more artefactual environments (env. art, gardens, topiary, architecture) "a concept of what the object is meant to be (its purpose or function) does not determine app but pushes itself more toward the foreground of app
  • In topiary or formal gardens or highly artefactual env. art (Christo's pink-cellophane wrapped Islands), design is apparent and can't help but see nature as artefactual
  • With art & architecture--though not always nec--knowing artist's aims or function of building may help locate expressive qualities or meanings connected to perceptual qualities
• DI aes app still appropriate for art and architecture
  • But clearly she is significantly loosening her claim about one feature of DI--namely, that DI involves ignoring the purpose or function of the object of app
  • Kermal quote
  • "Aes judge can bring in social, political background, place of work in art history, intention of artist without deriving conclusions about validity of judgment from these factors"
    • Can bring in background knowledge but it may not affect validity of aes judgment
  • "The work continues to be the focus of his attention and his judgment on the work will be about the meaning, order, and significance of parts of it; the work itself will be considered clarifying it by reference to the background"
    • But the background kn affects the works meaning and significance and so would seem central to the validity of any judgment or appro app
• DI AND VALUING NATURE
• DI requires freeing the mind from personal "preoccupations"and this allows it to be open to aes qualities
• Murdoch example of being drawn out of oneself and becoming engaged with natural objects
  • Looking out window in anxious/resentful state brooding on damage done to one's prestige
  • Suddenly observe hovering kestrel
  • Now everything is different: Brooding self with hurt vanity has disappeared and nothing left but the kestrel
• DI aes app is a state of "will-lessnesss" in which we are cut off from desire and fully absorbed by the object
  • Yes: Aes app is other directed and takes us away from our own preoccupations
  • But full absorption is an ideal perhaps, not a condition of aes response
• DI enables object directed app
  • But her view is that subject should contribute too
• Focused perception facilitated by DI
• Dewey on role of desire/thought and how aes exp is not primarily intellectual 141
  • "Not absence of desire/thought but their through incorporation into perceptual experience is what characterizes aes exp as distinct from exp that are especially intellectual or practical"
  • "Aes percipient is free from desire in presence of a sunset in that his desires are fulfilled in the perception itself; doesn't want the object for sake of something else)
• DI does not entail abstraction from the context in which the aes object is situated
  • it supports app that is sensitive to particularities of the exp
• Aes app is relational: aes qual depend on both subjects perceptual capacities as well as qualities of object
  • Yes but it is dependent on these two in very dif ways
    • Subjects lack of aes sensibility means won't exp aes qualities, not that those qualities are not present
    • Whereas object's lack of qualities (base qualities on which aes qualities supervene) means they aren't there
• DI supports a less human-centered approach to aes app of nature
  • In so far as we are abstracting from a number of personal features (though not all)
• DI of Aes App is creates a relationship with aes object like friendship (where we have intimacy but sufficient distance to allow other to be themselves)
  • Has a degree of distance, but not detached from features of ourselves and nature that enable us to become aes intimate with it
  • Like friendship that evolves into a closer relationship with some degree of intimacy, while allowing enough distance to allow others to be themselves
• DI integrated aes potentially supports EE of respect and care for nature
  • Moral respect involves allowing the other to be who they are w/o using them as a means to one's own ends
  • Aes app is an app that is intrinsic valuing in this sense
• Moral and aes values are distinct, but each value may complement the other for developing an appro attitude toward the natural env.
  • Just as aes app of nature alone is not enough for proper app of nature, so too a moral app of nature is not enough for proper app
  • This seems right to me