This blog post explores whether aesthetic judgment is based on objective facts or is the subjective response of the viewer, examining perspectives from aesthetic realism and anti-realism.
One debate in aesthetics concerning so-called aesthetic attributes like elegance or grandeur centers on whether the attribute referred to in an aesthetic judgment—that is, the aesthetic attribute—actually exists in the object being judged. The primary views on this are aesthetic realism and aesthetic anti-realism.
According to aesthetic realism, aesthetic attributes exist in the object. This means that when an aesthetic judgment about a certain aesthetic property is objectively true, that aesthetic property exists. For example, aesthetic realism holds that if we all agree in our aesthetic judgment that Beethoven’s ‘Symphony No. 5’ is majestic, then majesty is one of the actual properties of the ‘Symphony No. 5’, and we have all successfully perceived it. This view emphasizes the objectivity of aesthetic judgments, asserting that aesthetic properties are entities discoverable through our perception.
However, some among us might make an aesthetic judgment that the ‘Symphony of Fate’ is dull. Aesthetic realism explains this by suggesting that some individuals fail to perceive the actual attributes of the ‘Symphony of Fate’ due to perceptual issues, such as hearing impairment, or a lack of aesthetic sensitivity. Thus, aesthetic realism attributes the divergence in aesthetic judgments to the perceptual limitations or differing aesthetic sensibilities of individual appreciators. This stems from the belief that aesthetic judgments are grounded in objective facts, demonstrating an effort to locate the basis of such judgments in objective properties while not excluding the diversity of aesthetic experiences.
In contrast, aesthetic anti-realism denies the existence of objectively present aesthetic properties in the object. It holds that aesthetic judgments concern the subjective response of the appreciator, not the recognition of objectively present properties in the object. The reason aesthetic judgments about the ‘Symphony of Fate’ coincide is that we have all developed similar aesthetic sensibilities, leading us to respond similarly to that music. That is, the agreement in aesthetic judgments is seen as arising because people with similar sensibilities reacted in similar ways. Aesthetic anti-realism explains the reason for disagreements in aesthetic judgments as stemming from people with different aesthetic sensibilities reacting differently to the object.
Despite these differing positions, aesthetic realism and aesthetic anti-realism agree that aesthetic judgments are statements requiring justification. When asked to justify an aesthetic judgment about the ‘Fate Symphony,’ neither position answers that they cannot provide reasons. They agree that statements about aesthetic judgments, being a kind of proposition, require the presentation of rational reasons to support them.
Ultimately, aesthetic realism and aesthetic anti-realism offer different explanations for the nature of aesthetic experience and its evaluation, but they both recognize that aesthetic judgments cannot be explained as being entirely subjective or entirely objective. Each seeks to secure the validity of aesthetic judgments in its own way, and this remains a crucial task in aesthetic discourse. Aesthetic realism emphasizes the objectivity of aesthetic properties, asserting that these properties can be discovered through human perception. In contrast, aesthetic anti-realism stresses the subjective nature of aesthetic experience, viewing individual sensibility and experience as playing a decisive role in aesthetic judgment. This debate makes a significant contribution to a deeper understanding of the essence of aesthetic value and experience in aesthetics.
