What do you think?
Rate this book
Aesthetics: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Art
Explains why art is important, discusses expression, form, beauty, and criticism, and raises questions about ethics, meaning, and truth
160 pages, Hardcover
First published December 17, 1987
6 people are currently reading
67 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 11, 2020
It is what the title says it is: An "introduction". It does just that, and very little more.
The criticism made against different schools of thought seemed to me very unjust at times. Anne Sheppard is frequently too quick to dismiss entire ideologies, followed by assertions of obviously personal claims. Logical fallacies were aplenty and the loosely based arguments made the read boring at times. The author’s biased mentality is most prominent in that the book decides (and admits) to put its emphasis on “literature”, a limited genre of art. Towards the final chapters, the flow shifts from an inclination to talk mostly of literature close to a full-blown literary theory that is practically inapplicable to the other fields of art.
The book is not as much an introduction to “philosophy” as it is a brief "history" however inseparable these might be. The chapters are wisely clear cut and their order follows a reasonable pattern, although the criticism gets increasingly heavier and the author is explicitly suggesting an evolutionary view, of predecessor philosophers being inferior and of latter modifications to the same views as superior and closer to the “truth” that we seek.
The read was worthwhile, however. If you are looking for an easy-to-read reference on different views concerning art and aesthetics, how we come to appreciate art and natural beauty, how morals can be integrated with or kept at a distance from art, how critics interpret and evaluate works of art and most importantly, why human beings tend to bother with art, Anne Sheppard provides a collection of some of the most important, however incomplete, threads for you to embark on your journey on fuller understandings of each of these questions.
The criticism made against different schools of thought seemed to me very unjust at times. Anne Sheppard is frequently too quick to dismiss entire ideologies, followed by assertions of obviously personal claims. Logical fallacies were aplenty and the loosely based arguments made the read boring at times. The author’s biased mentality is most prominent in that the book decides (and admits) to put its emphasis on “literature”, a limited genre of art. Towards the final chapters, the flow shifts from an inclination to talk mostly of literature close to a full-blown literary theory that is practically inapplicable to the other fields of art.
The book is not as much an introduction to “philosophy” as it is a brief "history" however inseparable these might be. The chapters are wisely clear cut and their order follows a reasonable pattern, although the criticism gets increasingly heavier and the author is explicitly suggesting an evolutionary view, of predecessor philosophers being inferior and of latter modifications to the same views as superior and closer to the “truth” that we seek.
The read was worthwhile, however. If you are looking for an easy-to-read reference on different views concerning art and aesthetics, how we come to appreciate art and natural beauty, how morals can be integrated with or kept at a distance from art, how critics interpret and evaluate works of art and most importantly, why human beings tend to bother with art, Anne Sheppard provides a collection of some of the most important, however incomplete, threads for you to embark on your journey on fuller understandings of each of these questions.
November 25, 2018
This introduction provided context for some main threads of thought with regards to 1. What is art's purpose, 2. What is beauty, 3. What yardsticks can we actually use to evaluate if an art piece is better than another, complete with even briefer examples using art and literature.
It starts off with Plato's scale of ideal forms > sense experience as a copy > art as even further imitation, hence carrying with it a value judgement, and compares that to Wittgenstein's theory that the satisfaction of art arises from making the link across the gap between the medium itself, replete with conventions eg a halo around religious figures' heads, and the reality it is representing.
We then go forward to the Romantics, in which Tolstoy brings our attention to the expression of art by the artist, vs the evoking of emotion from that expression, and asserts that the quality of art correlates to the quality of feelings it invokes in the audience (more specifically, that moralistic feelings are the most superior of all). In response to Tolstoy, Sheppard makes a distinction between having moral characters in an art piece, vs the moral effects it invokes in the audience (which might be achieved with immoral characters), and questions the supposed moral effects of art, if it merely inspires a passive reflecting attitude within the reader/audience, as opposed to an active do-good call to action.
A difference is highlighted between art as representative -- we are given a situation to imagine ourselves experiencing -- and art as expressive, which stimulates us to imagine a situation for ourselves, eg with a slower tempo and minor scale in music. What is the origin of artistic convention?
I found Kant's theory that true aesthetic appreciation comes from a place of disinterest -- in the sense that there is no desire to make practical use of the object, only to contemplate it -- interesting: did this come about because art has traditionally been associated with the upper classes, ie did the definition come after the fact?
Sheppard ultimately believes, I think, that the richness of interpretation is the key factor in a work's value (the question of judgement: what makes a work better), how long it lasts. She spends the last part of the book arguing for ways to support a particular interpretation of a text, including looking at other works in the same genre, other works by the same author, the original audience's expectations, and the author's intentions, which might not be fully conscious to the author.
The arguments Sheppard puts forth in response to each of the theories she covers often verge on being overly simplistic, especially when she uses literature and/or art as supporting examples. This could be a result of the breadth and brevity of coverage, which does not permit for greater depth and hence insight. As a result I felt a certain sense of wanting more, a deeper dive beyond what frequently seemed like assertions. More analysis, in a nutshell. Perhaps this is unreasonable to expect from an introduction. I did appreciate the clarity in illuminating the nuances of judging and interpreting art, coming from a certain earnestness in making sure every example was understandable by the most art-obtuse of readers.
It starts off with Plato's scale of ideal forms > sense experience as a copy > art as even further imitation, hence carrying with it a value judgement, and compares that to Wittgenstein's theory that the satisfaction of art arises from making the link across the gap between the medium itself, replete with conventions eg a halo around religious figures' heads, and the reality it is representing.
We then go forward to the Romantics, in which Tolstoy brings our attention to the expression of art by the artist, vs the evoking of emotion from that expression, and asserts that the quality of art correlates to the quality of feelings it invokes in the audience (more specifically, that moralistic feelings are the most superior of all). In response to Tolstoy, Sheppard makes a distinction between having moral characters in an art piece, vs the moral effects it invokes in the audience (which might be achieved with immoral characters), and questions the supposed moral effects of art, if it merely inspires a passive reflecting attitude within the reader/audience, as opposed to an active do-good call to action.
A difference is highlighted between art as representative -- we are given a situation to imagine ourselves experiencing -- and art as expressive, which stimulates us to imagine a situation for ourselves, eg with a slower tempo and minor scale in music. What is the origin of artistic convention?
I found Kant's theory that true aesthetic appreciation comes from a place of disinterest -- in the sense that there is no desire to make practical use of the object, only to contemplate it -- interesting: did this come about because art has traditionally been associated with the upper classes, ie did the definition come after the fact?
Sheppard ultimately believes, I think, that the richness of interpretation is the key factor in a work's value (the question of judgement: what makes a work better), how long it lasts. She spends the last part of the book arguing for ways to support a particular interpretation of a text, including looking at other works in the same genre, other works by the same author, the original audience's expectations, and the author's intentions, which might not be fully conscious to the author.
The arguments Sheppard puts forth in response to each of the theories she covers often verge on being overly simplistic, especially when she uses literature and/or art as supporting examples. This could be a result of the breadth and brevity of coverage, which does not permit for greater depth and hence insight. As a result I felt a certain sense of wanting more, a deeper dive beyond what frequently seemed like assertions. More analysis, in a nutshell. Perhaps this is unreasonable to expect from an introduction. I did appreciate the clarity in illuminating the nuances of judging and interpreting art, coming from a certain earnestness in making sure every example was understandable by the most art-obtuse of readers.
Read
February 7, 2023"the artist holds the mirror up to nature and so produces a deception of reality"
April 10, 2013
This is a good basic intro to the best know theories of aesthetics in general, mostly organized in a historical manner. The book focuses more narrowly on writting in part II, which has its pros and cons. The author makes certain prescriptive assumptions about aesthetics, which visual artists and philosophers in general may not agree with, but its a good basic indexing tool. The book is colored by a lot of unexamined assumptions that run rampart through the art world today. That's okay because I was not looking for actual analysis as much as a compendium.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews