What do you think?
Rate this book
Aesthetics: A Comprehensive Anthology
From Plato's Ion to works by contemporary philosophers, this anthology showcases classic texts to illuminate the development of philosophical thought about art and the aesthetic. This volume is the most comprehensive collection of readings on aesthetics and the philosophy of art currently available.
704 pages, Paperback
First published September 27, 2007
33 people are currently reading
473 people want to read
About the author
Steven M. Cahn
94 books24 followersSteven M. Cahn, Ph.D. (Philosophy, Columbia University, 1966; A.B., Columbia College, 1963), teaches academic ethics, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of education at the Graduate Center and has published widely in the field of philosophy and education.
Cahn joined the Graduate Center as professor of philosophy and dean of graduate studies in 1983. He was named provost and vice president for academic affairs in 1984, remaining in that position until 1992. He previously taught at Dartmouth College, Vassar College, the University of Rochester, New York University, and the University of Vermont, where from 1973 to 1980 he headed the department of philosophy. He held executive positions with the Exxon Education Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities, and he is longtime president of the John Dewey Foundation.
Cahn joined the Graduate Center as professor of philosophy and dean of graduate studies in 1983. He was named provost and vice president for academic affairs in 1984, remaining in that position until 1992. He previously taught at Dartmouth College, Vassar College, the University of Rochester, New York University, and the University of Vermont, where from 1973 to 1980 he headed the department of philosophy. He held executive positions with the Exxon Education Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities, and he is longtime president of the John Dewey Foundation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
Read
April 7, 2025just did my last reading from this for my art philosophy class!!
April 24, 2024
This was an excellent anthology to work with. There is a large range of thinkers regarding temporal era and topical focus, and I can imagine that numerous interesting paths can be drawn between them, amounting to a history of aesthetics narrative for students to appreciate. The path that the class I taught for took involved: Plato and Aristotle. Kant. Nietzsche. Collingwood. Dewey. Merleau-Ponty. Heidegger. Then Plato’s symposium as the climax.
We start off with a disagreement between Plato and Aristotle on the proper function of art, which leads to different understandings of its impact on individuals and society. Plato thinks art, like any form of communication, ought to aim for the truth. Seen under this ascribed function, art is misleading and dangerous. Aristotle, on the other hand, thinks that art aims to give us a narrative experience, where it is intelligible which events unfold from one another, and we have an opportunity to see our own individual lives represented in the universality of the narrative, where we thereby can undergo catharsis. Seen under this ascribed function, art is meaningful and good.
Kant sets off the thesis that art is disinterested. In engaging with art, we do not care about the existence or reality of objects. This condition allows the imagination to “freely play,” and we are delighted at this very play, which we experience in terms of seeing various new meanings that may associate into one another in creative, free ways, which do not need to be logically structured. Nietzsche emphasizes the importance of this freedom and deepens the characterization of it by adding that it involves tremendous passion and emotion.
Collingwood offers an theory of art on which artwork consists in the expression of emotion. An artist’s figures out what an initial affect amounts to, namely the full emotion and what it is about. While this is a lovely idea, I was personally dissatisfied with it. Collingwood would be usefully understood in connection with Kant and Aristotle, I think. Unlike in real life when we’re struck by affect and figure out what’s going on of significance, where stakes are involved, in making and appreciating artwork, such stakes are absent. We’re free to appreciate what emotion can be about in greater depths, when there aren’t ticking bombs of responsibilities and stakes, which would constrain our imagination. What we appreciate here can be universal, as opposed to particular; we can see particular experiences in light of what we figure out regarding significance and affect in artwork.
Dewey offers the proposal that all human experience can be aesthetic, as long as we care and attend to what’s going on. The sensory manifold of experience can be likened to paints, and synthesizing this into a coherent experience can be likened to making a painting. While this is a lovely idea, I was personally dissatisfied with it. Dewey would be usefully understood in connection with Kant. Real life isn’t like art because responsibilities and stakes are involved in the former but not in the latter. Still, maybe it’s worthwhile exploring further the idea that there could be a meaning-making activity that’s shared across making sense of real life and of artwork; I’m not sure.
Merleau-Ponty thinks that Cezanne’s paintings illuminate to us how our own perceptual processes unfold (according to his theory of perception), and Heidegger thinks that artwork makes us self-conscious and all of a sudden aware of much that is implicit in our everyday lives, particularly concerning the activities and ways of life that make up our identities as shaping the concrete objects we use.
Here’s a way to characterize this narrative. Aristotle seems more right than Plato; artwork can give us a special sort of experience of universals regarding human action and life. Kant offers a way to understand how that is possible; this universality of human life can be delivered by artwork because artwork doesn’t purport to represent reality, which always can come in terms of particulars. The free play of the imagination in the absence of real life concerns gives rise to this special sort of experience of the universal. Nietzsche and Collingwood address a question this raises: How is art and life connected then? (Which might seem mysterious under the Kantian idea). Emotion unifies both; emotion is the source of the significance of our actions and lives. Dewey adds more to how we have creative license or agency in making sense of our experiences (implicitly, also our emotions), both in art and life. Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger explain particular aspects of our lives that art can universally represent to us: for the former, how perception works, and for the latter, how our culture hugely shapes what we care about and the significance we encounter in the world.
I was most struck with the Aristotle and Kant. I’d like to reread these essays/excepts. I have the premonition that much can be found in them, which is easily overlooked.
We start off with a disagreement between Plato and Aristotle on the proper function of art, which leads to different understandings of its impact on individuals and society. Plato thinks art, like any form of communication, ought to aim for the truth. Seen under this ascribed function, art is misleading and dangerous. Aristotle, on the other hand, thinks that art aims to give us a narrative experience, where it is intelligible which events unfold from one another, and we have an opportunity to see our own individual lives represented in the universality of the narrative, where we thereby can undergo catharsis. Seen under this ascribed function, art is meaningful and good.
Kant sets off the thesis that art is disinterested. In engaging with art, we do not care about the existence or reality of objects. This condition allows the imagination to “freely play,” and we are delighted at this very play, which we experience in terms of seeing various new meanings that may associate into one another in creative, free ways, which do not need to be logically structured. Nietzsche emphasizes the importance of this freedom and deepens the characterization of it by adding that it involves tremendous passion and emotion.
Collingwood offers an theory of art on which artwork consists in the expression of emotion. An artist’s figures out what an initial affect amounts to, namely the full emotion and what it is about. While this is a lovely idea, I was personally dissatisfied with it. Collingwood would be usefully understood in connection with Kant and Aristotle, I think. Unlike in real life when we’re struck by affect and figure out what’s going on of significance, where stakes are involved, in making and appreciating artwork, such stakes are absent. We’re free to appreciate what emotion can be about in greater depths, when there aren’t ticking bombs of responsibilities and stakes, which would constrain our imagination. What we appreciate here can be universal, as opposed to particular; we can see particular experiences in light of what we figure out regarding significance and affect in artwork.
Dewey offers the proposal that all human experience can be aesthetic, as long as we care and attend to what’s going on. The sensory manifold of experience can be likened to paints, and synthesizing this into a coherent experience can be likened to making a painting. While this is a lovely idea, I was personally dissatisfied with it. Dewey would be usefully understood in connection with Kant. Real life isn’t like art because responsibilities and stakes are involved in the former but not in the latter. Still, maybe it’s worthwhile exploring further the idea that there could be a meaning-making activity that’s shared across making sense of real life and of artwork; I’m not sure.
Merleau-Ponty thinks that Cezanne’s paintings illuminate to us how our own perceptual processes unfold (according to his theory of perception), and Heidegger thinks that artwork makes us self-conscious and all of a sudden aware of much that is implicit in our everyday lives, particularly concerning the activities and ways of life that make up our identities as shaping the concrete objects we use.
Here’s a way to characterize this narrative. Aristotle seems more right than Plato; artwork can give us a special sort of experience of universals regarding human action and life. Kant offers a way to understand how that is possible; this universality of human life can be delivered by artwork because artwork doesn’t purport to represent reality, which always can come in terms of particulars. The free play of the imagination in the absence of real life concerns gives rise to this special sort of experience of the universal. Nietzsche and Collingwood address a question this raises: How is art and life connected then? (Which might seem mysterious under the Kantian idea). Emotion unifies both; emotion is the source of the significance of our actions and lives. Dewey adds more to how we have creative license or agency in making sense of our experiences (implicitly, also our emotions), both in art and life. Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger explain particular aspects of our lives that art can universally represent to us: for the former, how perception works, and for the latter, how our culture hugely shapes what we care about and the significance we encounter in the world.
I was most struck with the Aristotle and Kant. I’d like to reread these essays/excepts. I have the premonition that much can be found in them, which is easily overlooked.
October 27, 2016
This is definitely a higher level of reading. If you really want to understand thinking about art, and start diving into it philosophically, this is your book to get the basis. It has original works compiled together from people such as Plato, Aristotle, to even Tolstoy.
April 27, 2025
Didn’t read every essay, some lesser authors are overrepresented imo (Carroll *ahem*), whereas some others are left out entirely. Doesn’t offer much in the way of contemporary/emerging voices either. Not the best Blackwell publication, especially at the price point
Read
December 30, 2010I read selections for a class and was able to get a hold on the basic aesthetic philosophies that are still kicking around today.
Currently Reading
February 16, 2011I am no longer revolted by Plato, et al but doubt I will become an eager consumer of philosophy.
Read
April 23, 2016WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN READING?
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews