Writing - student papers
| Derek Matravers: Aesthetic Concepts and Aesthetic Experiences Robert Standlee What Derek Matravers sets out to do in this essay is to challenge what Frank Sibley states in his 'Aesthetic Concepts'. Sibley believed that there were certain terms that are aesthetic and non-aesthetic. He also argues that aesthetic descriptions of objects depend upon the nature of the non-aesthetic properties of that object. Sibley makes a series of claims which describe our use of aesthetic terms: ( i ) No aesthetic description of a work is implied by a purely non-aesthetic description. ( ii ) A non-aesthetic description of a work might imply that a particular term could not be applied aesthetically. ( iii ) The aesthetic description of a work is bound up in an experience of that work. (iv) The aesthetic use of terms requires something over and above the use of the senses, namely taste. And ( v ) A term can have both aesthetic and non- aesthetic uses. Matravers immediately talks about the problems with the de claims. First of all, he states that ( i ) denies what he calls positive condition governing. He claims that Sibley means to deny both that there is an analytic connection between non-aesthetic terms and that any set of non-aesthetic properties would be sufficient for the correct application of an aesthetic term when taken as part of a broader set of non-aesthetic properties that constitute a work of art. He also says that in (ii) Sibley contradicts himself because that claim affirms negative condition governing which suggests that there is a relation of either one of these two sorts. He spends a great deal of the essay arguing that aesthetic terms and non aesthetic terms can be applied differently than Sibley suggests. His biggest point is that an aesthetic description of an object requires an experience of that object but that one can have an aesthetic experience through a description. This is why he finds faults with (iii) and (iv). The latter he claims denies our ability to have any experiences outside tradition. I have never seen the Mona Lisa but it has been described to me. I've been told it is very small. I’m not sure I agree with Matravers’ point concerning an aesthetic experience through description because I'm sure seeing the Mona Lisa would be better aesthetically than the description of it that I have been told. Overall, Matravers’ paper is hard to read and comprehend. However, his examples of what he is trying to get across are not that complicated. It is hard to say if I agree with him completely because I find it hard to understand what he is saying. For me, an aesthetic description of an object should be a direst result of an experience with that object. I do not say that has to be the only way but I can’t think of what would be better. Of the terms Sibley uses as aesthetic and non-aesthetic I think they are limited. I do not necessarily agree with points (iii) and (iv). |