Passage 6
Every introduction to the problems of aesthetics begins by acknowledging the
existence and claims of two methods of attack,—the general, philosophical,
deductive, which starts from a complete metaphysics and installs beauty in its
place among the other great concepts; and the empirical, or inductive, which seeks
to disengage a general principle of beauty from the objects of aesthetic experience
and the facts of aesthetic enjoyment: Fechner’s ‘aesthetics from above and from
below…’
Aesthetics, then, came into being as the philosophy of the Beautiful, and it may be
asked why this philosophical aesthetics does not suffice—why beauty should need
for its understanding also an aesthetics…
The answer is not that no system of philosophy is universally accepted, but that
the general aesthetic theories have not, as yet at least, succeeded in answering
the plain questions of ‘the plain man’ in regard to concrete beauty…No one of these
aesthetic systems, in spite of volumes of so-called application of their principles
to works of art, has been able to furnish a criterion of beauty…And so it was that
empirical aesthetics arose, which does not seek to answer those plain questions
as to the enjoyment of concrete beauty down to its simplest forms, to which
philosophical aesthetics had been inadequate.
But it is clear that neither has empirical aesthetics said the last word concerning
beauty. Criticism is still in a chaotic state that would be impossible if aesthetic
theory were firmly grounded. This situation appears to me to be due to the inherent
inadequacy and inconclusiveness of empirical aesthetics when it stands alone; the
grounds of this inadequacy I shall seek to establish in the following.
Granting that the aim of every aesthetics is to determine the Nature of Beauty, and
to explain our feelings about it, we may say that the empirical treatments propose
to do this either by describing the aesthetic object and extracting the essential
elements of Beauty, or by describing the aesthetic experience and extracting the
essential elements of aesthetic feeling, thereby indicating the elements of Beauty
as those which effect this feeling.
Now the bare description and analysis of beautiful objects cannot, logically, yield
any result; for the selection of cases would have to be arbitrary, and would be at
the mercy of any objection. To any one who should say, But this is not beautiful, and
should not be included in your inventory, answer could be made only by showing
that it had such and such qualities, the very, by hypothesis, unknown qualities
that were to be sought. Moreover, the field of beauty contains so many and so
heterogeneous objects, that the retreat to their only common ground, aesthetic
feeling, appears inevitable. A statue and a symphony can be reduced to a common
denominator most easily if the states of mind which they induce are compared.
Thus the analysis of objects passes naturally over to the analysis of mental states—
the point of view of psychology.
There is, however, a method subsidiary to the preceding, which seeks the elements
of Beauty in a study of the genesis and the development of art forms. But this
leaves the essential phenomenon absolutely untouched. The general types of
aesthetic expression may indeed have been shaped by social forces,— religious,
commercial, domestic,—but as social products, not as aesthetic phenomena. Such
studies reveal to us, as it were, the excuse for the fact of music, poetry, painting—
but they tell us nothing of the reason why beautiful rather than ugly forms were
chosen, as who should show that the bird sings to attract its mate, ignoring the
relation and sequence of the notes. The decorative art of most savage tribes, for
instance, is nearly all of totemic origin, and the decayed and degraded forms of
snake, bird, bear, fish, may be traced in the most apparently empty geometric
patterns;—but what does this discovery tell us of the essentially decorative quality
of such patterns or of the nature of beauty of form?…These researches, in short,
explain the reason for the existence, but not for the quality, of works of art.
Thus it is in psychology that empirical aesthetics finds its last resort. And indeed, our
plain man might say, the aesthetic experience itself is inescapable and undeniable.
You know that the sight or the hearing of this thing gives you a thrill of pleasure. You
may not be able to defend the beauty of the object, but the fact of the experience
you have. The psychologist, seeking to analyze the vivid and unmistakable Aesthetic
experience, would therefore proceed somewhat as follows. He would select the
salient characteristics of his mental state in presence of a given work of art. He would
then study, by experiment and introspection, how the particular sense-stimulations
of the work of art in question could become the psychological conditions of these
salient characteristics. Thus, supposing the aesthetic experience to have been
described as ‘the conscious happiness in which one is absorbed, and, as it were,
immersed in the sense-object,’ the further special aim, in connection with a picture,
for instance, would be to show how the sensations and associated ideas from
color, line, composition, and all the other elements of a picture may, on general
psychological principles, bring about this state of happy absorption…
Puffer, E. D. (2003). The psychology of beauty. Project Gutenberg. (Original work
published 1905)
With which of the following statements would the author agree, based on the
arguments presented in this passage?
A) The general usefulness of aesthetic theories is unrelated to whether they
are widely accepted or not
B) The fact that beauty can be seen throughout different categories of human
experiences is not a problem for aesthetics
C) The common man and the person studying psychological aesthetics have
the same concerns but approach them differently
D) Understanding the history of various beautiful objects is a powerful tool for
the philosopher of aesthetics
Correct answer is C.
While the author distinguishes the perspective of the common man–with
his concern for what is obvious and immediately evident from normal human
experience–and that of the various philosophers of aesthetics, who are concerned
about complicated and nuanced questions that demand intense and prolonged
inquiry, the author also notes that the common man and the person studying
psychological aesthetics are concerned about the same thing. When discussing
psychological aesthetics, the author writes that “our plain man might say, the
aesthetic experience itself is inescapable and undeniable. You know that the sight
or the hearing of this thing gives you a thrill of pleasure. You may not be able to
defend the beauty of the object, but the fact of the experience you have.” The
author then turns to the psychologist, whom he describes as “seeking to analyze
the vivid and unmistakable Aesthetic experience.” In other words, both the common
man and the psychologist begin from the same starting-point of experiences that
cannot be denied, and that are easily known by all,, although the common man
mostly remains in those experiences while the psychologist dives much deeper into
the study of those experiences. For this reason, Answer C is correct because it is
true that the common man and the person studying psychological aesthetics have
the same concerns but approach them differently.