In this blog post, we will examine whether beauty in art lies in the work itself or in the viewer’s interpretation, focusing on Beardsley’s theory.
Beardsley argues that aesthetic objects are those attributes of works of art that can be correctly appreciated and criticized. He states that aesthetic objects cannot be defined by the subjective attitudes of viewers, and takes an objective stance that aesthetic objects can only be defined based on the attributes of the works of art themselves. Therefore, he excludes things that cannot be aesthetic objects in works of art through the “principle of distinction” and the “principle of perceptibility.”
First, Beardsley presents the principle of distinction and opposes the position that the artist’s intention is the aesthetic object of a work of art. He presupposes that the attributes of a work of art must be distinguishable from the work itself in order to be aesthetic objects. Therefore, he argues that the artist’s intention, which is distinct from the work of art, cannot be an attribute of the work of art and must be excluded from aesthetic objects. This is to eliminate the possibility of subjective interpretation distorting the artist’s intention when it is conveyed to the viewer, thereby focusing attention on the essential attributes of the work of art.
The principle of perceptibility states that only those attributes of a work of art that can be directly perceived can be aesthetic objects. Beardsley defines things that cannot be perceived at all or directly perceived when experiencing a work of art as physical aspects, and argues that they should be excluded from aesthetic objects. For example, if you say, “This painting has refreshing colors and a flowing sense of movement,” you are making a statement about an aesthetic object that can be directly perceived while looking at the painting. However, if you say, “This painting was made with oil paints,” or “This painting was created in 1892,” you are making statements about physical aspects that cannot be directly perceived when looking at the painting.
These principles play an important role in providing objective criteria for evaluating works of art. By synthesizing these principles, Beardsley clarified the attributes of artworks that can be perceived objectively and made it clear that only objective attributes that cannot be separated from the artwork itself should be considered when interpreting the meaning of artworks as aesthetic objects. This is significant in that it guarantees the objectivity of aesthetic experience and enables pure art appreciation that is not distorted by the subjective interpretation of the viewer.
Beardsley’s argument contributes to clarifying the criteria for art criticism and appreciation. By focusing on the essential attributes of a work, viewers can gain a deeper understanding and appreciation of it. In addition, art critics can evaluate the value of a work through objective criteria, which enables a more fair and reliable evaluation of works of art. Beardsley’s objective stance still serves as an important standard in the evaluation and appreciation of art today.
Nevertheless, there are also criticisms of Beardsley’s theory. Some scholars argue that his objective stance limits the various interpretations of artworks. They argue that art interacts with the subjective experiences of the viewer to form meaning, and that Beardsley’s stance overlooks this.
If works of art can be evaluated solely on their own merits, then individual emotional responses and cultural backgrounds must be excluded. In this respect, his theory has been criticized for failing to fully reflect the richness and multifaceted nature of art appreciation. Beardsley’s principle of distinction and principle of perceptibility present strict criteria for evaluating works of art, but they have limitations in that they do not fully reflect the subjective experience of art.
The aesthetic experience of a work of art is enriched through the interaction between the work and the viewer, which cannot be fully explained by the objective attributes of the work alone. Therefore, Beardsley’s theory provides an important perspective on art evaluation, but it should be noted that it is insufficient as a standard for all art appreciation.
Through Beardsley’s argument, we can recognize the importance of objective criteria in understanding and evaluating the aesthetic objects of works of art. At the same time, however, we must not forget that the subjective experience of art appreciation is also an important factor. This means that works of art are not mere physical objects, but living entities that exist through their interaction with the viewer. Ultimately, art appreciation can be described as a process of discovering the true value of a work through a balance between objectivity and subjectivity.
