Being as I am a graduate student of philosophy, and likewise a lover of portrait and landscape art and photography, it is not odd that I should be drawn to the philosophy of aesthetics (the branch of philosophy that deals with the principles of beauty and artistic taste).

First I should stress that philosophy is not confined a study of reasoning (as may be expected when reading Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, David Hume, John Locke, René Descartes, Immanuel Kant, Friederich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, etc.). Philosophy is also the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience. Furthermore it is worthy to recall that, “…the very perfection of some of these products, the prestige they possess because of a long history of unquestioned admiration, creates conventions that get in the way of fresh insight” John Dewey, “Art as Experience” In addition, “When an art product once attains classic status, it somehow becomes isolated from the human conditions under which it was brought into being and from the human consequences it engenders in actual life-experience.” Idem

It is because of these two qualifications no doubt that I have always felt it important to support local talent.  Eventually – as I have discovered quite literally over the past half century – the local artist may graduate to a level of distinction far removed from the ordinary. This is not to suggest that only celebrated artists are of interest or significance; rather it is merely a reminder whence evolves the product.  The knowledge is not dissimilar the persuasion of knowing the personal background of a friend. That knowledge explains not only the artist himself or herself but also the character of our response to that person.

It is not uncommon when asking another about what he or she likes in art to hear the response, “I know what I like!” This seemingly dismissive observation is nonetheless fraught with depth. While the author may indeed know that he likes, he may be ignorant why he does so. Admittedly the examination of that latter thinking is neither necessary to the cause nor vital to its evolution. But it does form the basis of an enquiry into the attraction and appreciation of art, a prescription as diversified as the history surrounding the product.

Once again, it bears repeating that the appreciation of art is very much akin to the understanding and appreciation of each one of us. In that regard I am inclined to denominate art as a form of self-expression; which is to say, very often the foundation of art is not so much in its current detail as in its background detail. Here I feel compelled to recall that ordinarily art was the periphery of accumulation, it was the final thing to be purchased. In my defence against universal commonality, allow me to recount that one of the initial things I did upon buying my first little house was to commission a local artist to construct and install a stained glass window to replace a small round porthole. I speculate the feature is there to this day. While I may not have been able to afford a parade of hanging paintings, I tried insofaras possible to reflect my so-called artistic bent in the material goods I bought.  For example, when I was given a single long-stemmed red rose as a housewarming gift, I drove into the city to Wallack Gallery and purchased a Lalique vase (which I have to this day – but stuffed with silk red and white roses). Eventually the pattern of expression insinuated my furnishings, rugs, cutlery and draperies. In short it became impossible to separate the art from the artist.

To be blunt, we tend to collect art much the way we “collect” people.  It is undeniable that we all have a reason to be drawn to one person or another, the same way we are drawn to different works of art. As I have already advanced, an understanding of the person’s background enhances or detracts from the appreciation of his current behaviour. In both cases – art or personality – the strength of our historical knowledge affects the depth of our feelings, as well perhaps as betraying possible prejudice, misconception or presumption.

Another feature of aesthetic philosophy is the inescapable quality that very often art constitutes a signal element of existence, a necessity to its own expression of value whether directly or vicariously. I recall for instance an acquaintance from my youth who expended money much needed for other legitimate purposes upon works of art which she felt verified her being more than furniture or accessories. Her modest domestic circumstances were sharply identified by her demonstrably inspiring choice of art.

“…in any case, it is safe to say that a philosophy of art is sterilized unless it makes us aware of the function of art in relation to other modes of experience, and unless it indicates why this function is so inadequately realized, and unless it suggests the conditions under which the office would be successfully performed” Idem

You may recognize, dear Reader, that the appreciation of art does not arise from its native resources – such as the beauty of the flower from the contents of the earth nor even from the complicated manner of creation – but it is worthy to remember that the manner of expression of art is nonetheless contrived and mechanical to a degree. If for example you were asked to render an image of yourself, it is an undertaking not to be blankly submitted to Artificial Intelligence (which of course would require direction from you). Depending upon your desire for expression and numerous other personal adherences – and naturally depending upon your technical capacity – the artistic outcome will reflect you and your environment. In that respect aesthetic philosophy isn’t far estranged from rational theory; namely, the artistic process and its allure are axiomatic or at the very least deductive.

As a philosophy student I have long ago accustomed my reflections to the accusation of rubbish. Frankly why it is that philosophy generally amuses me as a forum for conversation I do not know. But as my friend and I concluded yesterday when putting down our coffee cups for the last time, there are unmistakably things which draw some people to art while others prefer sport for example. Certainly the choice of art over athletics suffers instant defeat by machismo; but neither is thereby prejudiced. The search for what it is about art that draws people’s attention is more relevantly moot. As my friend and his wife complete the arrangement of their new home, gathering and deploying artifacts from as many as three households, it will surely inevitably flow from the industry the manifestation – unwitting or otherwise – of the philosophy of aesthetics.

Much of our existence is keyed to the note of praise and blame, exculpation and dis-
approval. Hence there has emerged in theory, reflecting a wide-spread tendency in practice, a disposition to erect criticism into something “judicial.” Idem

The philosophy of aesthetics is as endless as the speculation surrounding it. For some it is no more complicated than, “You is what you is”. For others it is a compulsion to explore beyond the obvious, decomposing and dissecting. My concern at this stage however is that, while I may marvel at the multitude of parts in a complicated watch, I am reluctant to take it apart for fear of being unable to restore it to its original purpose.