Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T23:23:16.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Reply To Miss Smith

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2009

Extract

The word “objective” is of course the trouble–maker here, Miss Smith assumes that if an aesthetic statement is held to be objective (or to have an objective reference) then it is the physical existence of the work of art (the picture or the sound of the music) that constitutes the objectivity: i.e. if a work of art is exteroceptively perceivable, then an aesthetic statement involving it is objective. Some writers, however (usually philosophical idealists) have held that in genuine works of art there is manifested an ultimate spiritual Reality (it might be called God) which we apprehend when we appreciate such works. On this theory, an aesthetic statement (“This picture is beautiful”) has an objective reference if the subject of it (the work of art) succeeds in expressing or communicating such a supersensible Reality: if it fails to do so, then the statement is subjective, i.e. it can be analysed completely into a statement about our feelings or emotions (e.g. “I like this picture”).

Type
Discussion
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)