What do you think?
Rate this book
Beginner's Guide (Oneworld Publications)
Aesthetics: A Beginner's Guide
What is art? Why do we find some things beautiful but not others? Is it wrong to share MP3s? These are just some of the questions explored by aesthetics, the philosophy of art. In this sweeping introduction, Charles Taliaferro skilfully guides us through different theories of art and beauty, tackling issues such as who owns art and what happens when art and morality collide. From Plato on poetry to Ringo Starr on the drums, this is a perfect introductory text for anyone interested in the fascinating questions art can raise.
160 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 1, 2011
24 people are currently reading
199 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 - 19 of 19 reviews
December 28, 2018
This beginner’s guide on Aesthetics by Charles Taliaferro is not only for beginners but also for all artists, writers, musician and students of philosophy interested in art and aesthetics. Why? Because the wealth of ideas, theories, examples and questions presented could keep anybody going, irrespective of their background and experience, for years and years. I say this having myself dedicated much of my adult life to the study and pursuit of philosophy, literature and the arts.
Indeed, I would go further – I’ve read a number of intro texts on aesthetics and judge Taliaferro’s book the very best one I’ve come across. Very clear; very accessible. As a way of providing a sample of what a reader will find, I have listed some of the philosophers and artists/artworks examined along with the types of questions posed from each of the six chapters:
1 – WHAT IS BEAUTY?
Plato and Aristotle’s idea of beauty - Homer’s Iliad - Confucius and his philosophy - John Milton’s Paradise Lost - David Hume’s ideas about taste - Iris Murdock’s thinking on the return to beauty as a prime value
What do you consider beautiful and how does this beauty become part of your life?
Is beauty by its very nature linked with goodness?
Do your friends and family take on a special beauty because you love them?
Is there anything having a higher value than beauty, things like glory or victory or moral rightness?
2 – WHAT IS A WORK OF ART?
Duchamp’s Fountain (an upside down urinal) - Picasso’s Guernica – Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Leo Tolstoy – R. G. Collingwood – Arthur Danto
Who gets to choose or judge what’s a work of art?
Must a work of art contain an element of beauty?
What place does an artist’s expression and feeling have in creating a work of art?
What does it mean to have an aesthetic experience?
3 – ART AND MEANING
Monroe Beardsley - Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov - Lord Shiva statue – Immanuel Kant – Jacque Derrida
Does the intent of an author or artist count in the way we consider the meaning of their creation?
How does the meaning of a work change over time?
How important is the context in which we experience a work of art?
Does a work of art have an objective meaning or is meaning entirely individual and subjective?
4 – WHAT MAKES ART GOOD?
Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse - C.S. Lewis - Coppola’s Apocalypse Now - Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will - Indian aesthetician B.N. Goswami - Edmond Burke
Is there a definite set of criteria in determining what makes art good?
How does one define creativity and imagination?
What is meant by ‘the sublime’?
What moral obligations does an author or artist have to their community and society?
5 – THE LOCATION, OWNERSHIP AND DANGERS OF THE ARTWORK
Jerrold Levinson - Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographs - Michelangelo’s David -Daniel Shapiro -André Malraux
Should modern artists have the right to borrow liberally from traditional and religious cultures?
What roll does censorship have in relation to art/writing/films/performance?
What is the difference in our experiencing a reproduction as opposed to the original?
Should we be able to copy music freely via the internet?
6 – CROSS-CULTURAL AESTHETICS
Shikibu’s The Tale of Genji - Liu Xie’s The Literary Mind and the Carving of Dragons (a highly regarded Chinese aesthetics text) - Japanese poets Saigyō Hōshi and Matsuo Bashō – Zen Gardens and Zen tea ceremonies
What links are there between aesthetics and the harmony of nature?
How familiar must we be with the artist’s culture to properly view the work of art?
What can we learn from Japanese aesthetic and the value placed on spontaneity and sincerity in works of art?
What is unique about a Zen garden?
September 9, 2021
I read this because I was stimulated by Walter Pater’s study of the Renaissance to think and read a bit more about this subject. I enjoyed this a great deal and I think it is a very useful and accessible introduction.
Some of my own prejudices were challenged. For example, I have always hated the paintings of Francis Bacon, but Talafierro writes:
“(His) subjects may indeed be ugly, but the overall effect (his masterful command of color and form, the close study of piercing expressive raw emotion) is something we aesthetically prize and find mesmerizing”
This changed my thinking about Bacon. But then I’ve always thought some works of art “aesthetically valuable and mesmerizing”, even if I don’t find them beautiful: examples for me would be the Willendorf Venus or the Benin Bronzes. However, nobody will convince me that Duchamp, Hirst or Emin are anything other than charlatans dedicated to anti-Art through uglification. And as for literature – de Sade’s “120 Days of Sodom” is unreadable and vile, despite the heroic effort of Simone de Beauvoir to make a case for it as “literature” (her introduction to that book was the only part I could read without gagging).
One of the really interesting things about this is the brief but tantalising chapter on Japanese and Chinese aesthetics – about which I knew far too little – and especially about Liu Xie. I liked his insight that good writing and wise living are interrelated. If true (and I hope it is), then that kicks de Sade firmly onto the rubbish heap. But – more importantly – it gives me the pleasant thought that crafting book reviews on GR may not actually be the evasion of real life responsibilities which it sometimes feels like, but may instead be an attempt to live a better life.
Some of my own prejudices were challenged. For example, I have always hated the paintings of Francis Bacon, but Talafierro writes:
“(His) subjects may indeed be ugly, but the overall effect (his masterful command of color and form, the close study of piercing expressive raw emotion) is something we aesthetically prize and find mesmerizing”
This changed my thinking about Bacon. But then I’ve always thought some works of art “aesthetically valuable and mesmerizing”, even if I don’t find them beautiful: examples for me would be the Willendorf Venus or the Benin Bronzes. However, nobody will convince me that Duchamp, Hirst or Emin are anything other than charlatans dedicated to anti-Art through uglification. And as for literature – de Sade’s “120 Days of Sodom” is unreadable and vile, despite the heroic effort of Simone de Beauvoir to make a case for it as “literature” (her introduction to that book was the only part I could read without gagging).
One of the really interesting things about this is the brief but tantalising chapter on Japanese and Chinese aesthetics – about which I knew far too little – and especially about Liu Xie. I liked his insight that good writing and wise living are interrelated. If true (and I hope it is), then that kicks de Sade firmly onto the rubbish heap. But – more importantly – it gives me the pleasant thought that crafting book reviews on GR may not actually be the evasion of real life responsibilities which it sometimes feels like, but may instead be an attempt to live a better life.
April 20, 2022
A wonderful overview of aesthetic theories. Very helpful.
October 12, 2020
I have honed in on specific themes that were addressed in this book, so I hope the reader will forgive me if I do not detail a broad account of all topics in this review. I will briefly state that this was a very enjoyable book, which helped improve my understanding of aesthetics.
The first point I want to address, is the Marxist notion of automonism – the idea that art constitutes a realm independent of ethics. Here, Taliaferro paradoxically concludes, that sometimes the ugly or horrifying can be framed as such, so as to be deeply valuable, and therefore, beautiful. Here I disagree, I think there are definitive attributes to what constitutes both ‘beauty’ and ‘value’. I do not contend that the two are mutually exclusive, there are areas of overlap, but the two concepts are not as fluid to the extent that everything of value necessarily possesses beauty.
Francis Bancon’s portraits can be considered ugly; with the deformed expressions of torture on the face of his subjects. However, one cannot disregard his masterful command of colour and expressive form. On the other hand, if a work of art is not only aesthetically repugnant but downright offensive to basic standards of decency, I would not attribute as high a value to the piece or the artist who created it based purely on the fact that it managed to elicit a fervent response from me. It is not difficult to be provocative, and this I would argue, constitutes the main intention of much modern art. I find it abhorrent that Duchamp was able to earn a living by re-fashioning a urinal or that Gunther Von Hagens the German “Doctor” was allowed to contort human limbs into grotesque sculptures and call it ‘Plastination’ – I would call it desecration.
To shock and to disgust is not as profound as the artist may believe it to be - particularly if their wish is to draw attention to a deeper socio-cultural issue; Damien Hirst’s deceased animal corpse in a vat of acid is a notable example. Nor can one deny that certain works of art are demonstrably unethical and excusing such works under the expedient term ‘autonomism’ should not render it immune from condemnation. I don’t think distressing imagery achieves the goal of conveying profundity any more than an image of a blackened human lung prevents a smoker from purchasing a pack of cigarettes. Furthermore, it might cause the observer to resent the message altogether for having been packaged in such a crude and repellent way.
It seems to be the case that it is invariably a select, egotistical minority – often with deviant proclivities - who thrive in modern art circles, mainly due to the esoteric element that sustains their snobbishness as well as the inordinate sums of money they are somehow able to attract. It is this same ilk who worship at the altar of Jacques Derida and the Post-Modernists; where anything and everything is relative, even the book you are reading – your understanding of the text’s meaning is just as, or more valid, than what the author intended it to mean. In other words, utter nonsense.
This is why I attribute more value to a classically beautiful work of art; as it imposes upon one’s senses a far more profound array of emotions and impressions. In the same way as objective moral values exist, so do objective values that pertain to beauty. Beauty in the classical sense of aestheticism is not merely narrow in scope just because the focus is primarily on the visual and the sensual pleasure derived from the enjoyment of the voyeuristic experience; it bears harmony through pleasing symmetry and conjures delight in the observer. Value can be attributed to that which arouses intrinsic appreciation or visual delight.
The Platonic theory of beauty is the foundation from which the more classic ideals of aesthetic appreciation stem. I believe that an observably beautiful work of art can be considered a ‘conduit’ – a window through which we are able to discover meaning and value which bears an equal or greater level of profundity to the veneer itself. The recognition of aesthetic beauty in a work of art invites us to dwell in a prolonged state of meditative contemplation. We can escape into a temporal reverie by deliberating on that which depicts the sublime. Take the following analogy, imagine you happen upon a grand temple and marvel at its stature and magnificence; you are then drawn in to discover a treasure trove of rich, variegated luxuries. Once satisfied, you leave spellbound and gently stroll back the way you came, imbued with a new knowledge and appreciation of the temple as you gaze back at the same façade you were greeted with in the beginning.
The first point I want to address, is the Marxist notion of automonism – the idea that art constitutes a realm independent of ethics. Here, Taliaferro paradoxically concludes, that sometimes the ugly or horrifying can be framed as such, so as to be deeply valuable, and therefore, beautiful. Here I disagree, I think there are definitive attributes to what constitutes both ‘beauty’ and ‘value’. I do not contend that the two are mutually exclusive, there are areas of overlap, but the two concepts are not as fluid to the extent that everything of value necessarily possesses beauty.
Francis Bancon’s portraits can be considered ugly; with the deformed expressions of torture on the face of his subjects. However, one cannot disregard his masterful command of colour and expressive form. On the other hand, if a work of art is not only aesthetically repugnant but downright offensive to basic standards of decency, I would not attribute as high a value to the piece or the artist who created it based purely on the fact that it managed to elicit a fervent response from me. It is not difficult to be provocative, and this I would argue, constitutes the main intention of much modern art. I find it abhorrent that Duchamp was able to earn a living by re-fashioning a urinal or that Gunther Von Hagens the German “Doctor” was allowed to contort human limbs into grotesque sculptures and call it ‘Plastination’ – I would call it desecration.
To shock and to disgust is not as profound as the artist may believe it to be - particularly if their wish is to draw attention to a deeper socio-cultural issue; Damien Hirst’s deceased animal corpse in a vat of acid is a notable example. Nor can one deny that certain works of art are demonstrably unethical and excusing such works under the expedient term ‘autonomism’ should not render it immune from condemnation. I don’t think distressing imagery achieves the goal of conveying profundity any more than an image of a blackened human lung prevents a smoker from purchasing a pack of cigarettes. Furthermore, it might cause the observer to resent the message altogether for having been packaged in such a crude and repellent way.
It seems to be the case that it is invariably a select, egotistical minority – often with deviant proclivities - who thrive in modern art circles, mainly due to the esoteric element that sustains their snobbishness as well as the inordinate sums of money they are somehow able to attract. It is this same ilk who worship at the altar of Jacques Derida and the Post-Modernists; where anything and everything is relative, even the book you are reading – your understanding of the text’s meaning is just as, or more valid, than what the author intended it to mean. In other words, utter nonsense.
This is why I attribute more value to a classically beautiful work of art; as it imposes upon one’s senses a far more profound array of emotions and impressions. In the same way as objective moral values exist, so do objective values that pertain to beauty. Beauty in the classical sense of aestheticism is not merely narrow in scope just because the focus is primarily on the visual and the sensual pleasure derived from the enjoyment of the voyeuristic experience; it bears harmony through pleasing symmetry and conjures delight in the observer. Value can be attributed to that which arouses intrinsic appreciation or visual delight.
The Platonic theory of beauty is the foundation from which the more classic ideals of aesthetic appreciation stem. I believe that an observably beautiful work of art can be considered a ‘conduit’ – a window through which we are able to discover meaning and value which bears an equal or greater level of profundity to the veneer itself. The recognition of aesthetic beauty in a work of art invites us to dwell in a prolonged state of meditative contemplation. We can escape into a temporal reverie by deliberating on that which depicts the sublime. Take the following analogy, imagine you happen upon a grand temple and marvel at its stature and magnificence; you are then drawn in to discover a treasure trove of rich, variegated luxuries. Once satisfied, you leave spellbound and gently stroll back the way you came, imbued with a new knowledge and appreciation of the temple as you gaze back at the same façade you were greeted with in the beginning.
January 9, 2023
Pel meu gust una mica massa popurrí de gemes. Crec també que potser no n'he fet una lectura 100% conscient ja que llegir en anglès sempre em requereix molta més concentració (més en aquesta temàtica) i no sempre l'he tinguda.
January 12, 2014
Listening to this recorded book felt kind of like tuning into a philosophical discussion/debate. A positive idea presented, then there of course are problems with that view, but the perspectives that then replace the discarded theories, end up being full of holes themselves. One doesn't come away from a book like this feeling much the wiser, it actually muddies the water, well, it doesn't muddy the water, but just reveals how murky it already was and how there are no clear answers to be found. Maybe the truth lies somewhere between extremes, for example on one side we have the idea of perfect/absolute beauty and the other-side that beauty is purely subjective (an artist can get away with calling a steaming pile of diarrhea beautiful). To me both are partly right and partly wrong.
The book did bring a lot to my attention that I had not heard discussed before. It's interesting thinking about what makes something a work of art, who gets to determine this? The book mentions that famous upside urinal that was put in a museum. I remember hearing about someone putting a plain white canvas on display. I mean sure, it can be metaphorical of a lot, like how there was absolutely nothing going on in that artist brain. But yeah, way to go philosophy of aesthetics; people can now get recognition and 1,000s of dollars for a blank canvas! :)
I've notice the lack of beauty in art these days, people don't use complementary colors or make things pleasing to the eyes, and yeah, this book shows me this is likely purposeful. It seems some artist have the same disgust for what typically goes for beauty in art, as literary critics and authors deride protagonist in books who have strong moral character. I suppose I must be old fashioned, I tend to prefer the beautiful and the good, even though my art has dark, melancholy themes.
Now as an artist myself, and one who always has a specific meaning for almost all of my art, which is symbolic of experiences, emotions and ideas, it was interesting to hear that a good number of folks think my intent and meaning, mean absolutely nothing and shouldn't even be considered, when people contemplate my art. What? Speaking of my art, I might as well do a shameless plug for my own, if you care to take a look at some of it:
https://www.forevergrasping.com
or my art gallery on facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/john.martind...
But yeah, I should go through this book again, I'd get a lot more out of it. Most of it has been forgotten.
The book did bring a lot to my attention that I had not heard discussed before. It's interesting thinking about what makes something a work of art, who gets to determine this? The book mentions that famous upside urinal that was put in a museum. I remember hearing about someone putting a plain white canvas on display. I mean sure, it can be metaphorical of a lot, like how there was absolutely nothing going on in that artist brain. But yeah, way to go philosophy of aesthetics; people can now get recognition and 1,000s of dollars for a blank canvas! :)
I've notice the lack of beauty in art these days, people don't use complementary colors or make things pleasing to the eyes, and yeah, this book shows me this is likely purposeful. It seems some artist have the same disgust for what typically goes for beauty in art, as literary critics and authors deride protagonist in books who have strong moral character. I suppose I must be old fashioned, I tend to prefer the beautiful and the good, even though my art has dark, melancholy themes.
Now as an artist myself, and one who always has a specific meaning for almost all of my art, which is symbolic of experiences, emotions and ideas, it was interesting to hear that a good number of folks think my intent and meaning, mean absolutely nothing and shouldn't even be considered, when people contemplate my art. What? Speaking of my art, I might as well do a shameless plug for my own, if you care to take a look at some of it:
https://www.forevergrasping.com
or my art gallery on facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/john.martind...
But yeah, I should go through this book again, I'd get a lot more out of it. Most of it has been forgotten.
July 1, 2018
A very brief introduction to a topic that I can see spending a lifetime contemplating. The focus of this book is on art and aesthetics though I imagine many of the theories discussed in this book can be applied or at least adapted for other areas of reality that do not qualify as "art" (I thought the arguments for what constitutes "art" to be fascinating as well). I think this is a good place to start for anyone who is troubled by the seeming arbitrariness of beauty - is it really in the eye of the beholder? - though the arguments discussed for the evaluation (of art) are many and in some cases contradictory. This isn't a book that will supply the answers necessarily, but it is a roadmap for how to start thinking about the questions.
April 4, 2020
An enjoyable and light read. Goes through various perspectives on the nature of art, explaining views on the value of art, the relationship between the artist and the artwork, what constitutes an work of art. I enjoyed learning about the distinction between the 3 aesthetic values: the sublime, the aesthetic experience and beauty.
November 19, 2020
Great introduction to art philosophy and aesthetics in general.
March 22, 2023
This is a great overview of aesthetics.
July 2, 2024
It is not an easy book.
March 14, 2022
Fun questions are asked, and some boring ones too. Various, often contrary answers are offered.
I wish the mystic's viewpoint was explored too. It is not, along with a few other viewpoints of intimate importance to me personally, like a historical, political one.
It doesn't exactly dare you to think radically about aesthetic inquiries; ie, those inquiries are not traced deep down to their philosophical roots. Or so it seemed to me.
I wish the mystic's viewpoint was explored too. It is not, along with a few other viewpoints of intimate importance to me personally, like a historical, political one.
It doesn't exactly dare you to think radically about aesthetic inquiries; ie, those inquiries are not traced deep down to their philosophical roots. Or so it seemed to me.
December 18, 2015
This is a college-level text for beginning philosophy classes, and it's pitched perfectly for its audience. The writing is clear and understandable, which borders on the miraculous, considering some of the philosophy texts I've read. Each chapter is short and to-the-point, without a lot of in-depth argumentation and weighing up of pros and cons. You might think of this book as a collection of lengthy encyclopedia articles, each one covering a different major philosophy.
My only real complaint is the last chapter, which covers Chinese and Japanese philosophy. Everything up to that point has been about the West, so this last entry feels completely out of place. If the scope is to be broadened beyond Western philosophy, where are all the other societies of the world? If that's too big a pill to swallow, why not keep the focus on the West? It seems like a poor editorial decision made at the last minute.
Serious philosophers may find this book dull, but it's an excellent introduction for people who know nothing about the field.
My only real complaint is the last chapter, which covers Chinese and Japanese philosophy. Everything up to that point has been about the West, so this last entry feels completely out of place. If the scope is to be broadened beyond Western philosophy, where are all the other societies of the world? If that's too big a pill to swallow, why not keep the focus on the West? It seems like a poor editorial decision made at the last minute.
Serious philosophers may find this book dull, but it's an excellent introduction for people who know nothing about the field.
September 13, 2012
I knew early on that this was a book that I wasn't going to enjoy; the author's obsession with Platonic aesthetics overwhelms from the first pages. I had hoped a "Beginner's Guide" would introduce me to aesthetic philosophies with which I was not previously familiar, but the author here chose instead to pursue in depth one that has been beaten like a dead horse, at this point.
I will be fair: if you you truly are a beginner to understanding aesthetics and have no understanding whatsoever of the subject, you may find a look at the first - though not, in my opinion, best - real Western system of aesthetics. The book could, for such a reader, provide a good grounding in the context of Plato to allow for future growth in other directions.
Still, not something I intend to come back to in the future.
I will be fair: if you you truly are a beginner to understanding aesthetics and have no understanding whatsoever of the subject, you may find a look at the first - though not, in my opinion, best - real Western system of aesthetics. The book could, for such a reader, provide a good grounding in the context of Plato to allow for future growth in other directions.
Still, not something I intend to come back to in the future.
May 6, 2014
This book is useful; I think it meets expectations for a "beginners guide." The reading level does not intimidate interested readers. Taliaferro regularly touches on topics with insight. Even if the topics and insights are underdeveloped, the interested reader can find his / her own way to elaboration elsewhere. In my opinion, this is a good book for college-age students who do not have access to the philosophy of aesthetics in their program of study.
March 20, 2012
Heavy going - needs repeated reading for it to sink it. Now I know why contemporary artists have such a twisted view of how good their art work is.
April 15, 2014
Aesthetic Animism.
April 13, 2015
Yes very much an introduction, whets your appetite.
August 15, 2015
About as clear and concise an introductory book can get. The last chapter is commendable in weaving in chinese and Japanese aesthetics.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews