Taste and Experience in Eighteenth Century Aesthetics acknowledges theories of taste, beauty, the fine arts, genius, expression, the sublime and the picturesque in their own right, distinct from later theories of an exclusively aesthetic kind of experience. By drawing on a wealth of thinkers, including several marginalised philosophers, Dabney Townsend presents a novel reading of the century to challenge our understanding of art and move towards a unique way of thinking about aesthetics. Speaking of a proto-aesthetic, Townsend (...) surveys theories of taste and beauty arising from the empiricist shift in philosophy. A proto-aesthetic was shaped by the philosophers who followed Locke and accepted that theories of taste and beauty must be products of experience alone. Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, Alexander Gerard and Thomas Reid were among the most important advocates, joined by others who re-thought traditional topics. Featuring chapters tracing its philosophical principles, issues raised by the subjectivity of the empiricist approach and the more academic proto-aesthetic formed toward the end of the century, Townsend argues that Lockean empiricism laid the foundations for what we now call aesthetics. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Values of Beauty: Historical Essays in AestheticsDabney TownsendValues of Beauty: Historical Essays in Aesthetics, by Paul Guyer; 359 pp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, $75.00, $27.99 paper.This volume collects thirteen essays that range over topics from the eighteenth century to the twentieth century. The earliest was published in 1986, the last in 2004, and three appear here for the first time. They are grouped topically by period—"I. Mostly (...) before Kant; II. Mostly Kant; III. Mostly After Kant"—rather than chronologically. While this order is useful, it introduces some dislocation if one approaches the book as a whole since the last essay in the book is the first chronologically, and part of the interest of the book lies in the changes in Paul Guyer's positions over time that are reflected in his careful reconsideration of topics that he has dealt with more extensively in his volumes on Kant's [End Page 422] philosophy. As one of the most important contemporary interpreters of Kant's aesthetics, those reconsiderations are well worth attending to.The focus of all of the essays is clearly on Kant's aesthetics. That perspective is clear even when Guyer is discussing the history of aesthetics prior to Kant. As he notes, "this history of the first decades of modern aesthetics has obviously been written with an eye to Kant" ("Origins of Modern Aesthetics: 1711–1735," pp. 32–33). It continues in the discussions of recent aesthetics. For example, Guyer concludes that "the effect that is intended on the revised Beardsleyan definition [of art] is in the tradition of the Kantian concept of the free play of imagination and understanding" ("From Jupiter's Eagle to Warhol's Boxes," p. 313). Danto and Mothersill are also, it is argued, in the Kantian tradition.There are, of course, some problems with this perspective, especially with regard to the pre-Kantian history of aesthetics. For example, Guyer finds Kant's distinction between pure beauty and apprehended beauty reflected in an earlier distinction between beauty of form and beauty of interest or utility. He writes: "The foundation of this theory [Hume's theory of beauty in the Treatise and An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals] is the division of beauty into two classes, the first that of pleasurable sentiment caused by an immediate response—that is, a response not mediated by the intervention of imagination or judgment—to the form or other perceptual qualities of an object, and the second that of pleasurable sentiment, which arises only when the perception of the form of an object is supplemented by a concept or concepts brought to bear on it by imagination or judgment." ("The Standard of Taste and the 'Most ardent Desire of Society,'" p. 46). What Guyer identifies as a distinction between kinds of beauty is for Hume a distinction between sources of ideas, however. The second kind of beauty requires reflection and the combination of other ideas. For Hume, there are not two kinds of beauty but two ways that the ideas of beauty, which is just a form of pleasure, are sorted. Reservations about Guyer's perspective on the earlier history of aesthetics do not detract from the interest of his analysis, however, which is always careful and detailed.The central eight essays labeled "Mostly Kant" trace themes that Guyer has treated in much greater detail in his earlier books. Two central themes are especially prominent throughout these essays. First, Guyer views Kant's theory of beauty as the harmony of the imagination and the understanding: "The concept of the free yet harmonious play between the cognitive powers of imagination and understanding is the central concept in Kant's explanation of the experience of beauty and the analysis of the judgment of taste" ("The Harmony of the Faculties Revisited," p. 77). He refers back to essentially this formulation throughout the subsequent essays. Much of the interest of these essays lies in the way Guyer explicates and defends this central thesis against alternative readings of Kant and objections that it is inconsistent with the freedom from concepts and the purity of beauty that Kant claims.Second, Guyer reads Kant's aesthetics as... (shrink)

Hume's Aesthetic Theory examines the neglected area of the development of aesthetics in empiricist thinking, exploring the link between the empiricist background of aesthetics in the eighteenth century and the work of David Hume.

Containing twenty-two essays, including Dabney Townsend's essay on the development of eighteenth century aesthetics to make the history of aesthetics accessible to both students and specialists alike.

Hume consistently treats all of the passions, emotions, and feelings, so called, as sentiments in the tradition of Shaftesbury. Further, for Hume, sentiment is the epistemic basis of a disciplined form of thinking, and, as such, it implies both a moral and an aesthetic epistemology (though ‘aesthetic’ is anachronistic when applied to Hume). When sentiment is understood in this way, it becomes the primary evidence for knowledge. Properly disciplined, sentiment can play the role that clear and distinct ideas played for (...) Descartes and Locke, and that internal sense played for Hutcheson. Hume thinks that sentiment allows one to escape the contradictions and skepticism that destroy other empiricist systems. The question discussed in this article, therefore, is how Hume’s use of sentiment legitimizes it as the leading form of judgment, and how that judgment is essentially aesthetic as well as moral. (shrink)

This anthology is a collection of basic readings for beginning students, chosen to illustrate the major movements in the history, development and nature of aesthetics. Selections of major importance are drawn from the period of the Greeks to the mid-twentieth century. Every section introduction includes an historical overview of each period, biographical information, and a brief analysis of key concepts. The editor designed this anthology to be of sufficient length for use as the sole text in a one quarter course, (...) yet brief enough to invite the use of additional materials in longer courses. (shrink)

This volume is a fascinating introduction to the core themes and basic methods of aesthetics and the philosophy of art. Providing an analytic and historical treatment of the issues, and including many illustrative examples to both motivate and reinforce theoretical discussion, An Introduction to Aesthetics is the ideal course book for the philosophical novice. It includes an Appendix, a comprehensive Glossary and further reading suggestions to help the student reader develop a deeper comprehension of the field.

This commentary argues that Ted Cohen's claim that Kant confuses logical and aesthetic judgements (in ‘Three Problems in Kant's Aesthetics’, British Journal of Aesthetics, vol. 42 [2002], pp. 1–12) can be countered by a somewhat different reading of Kant's argument in 8 of the Critique of Judgement. Cohen construes Kant's argument as an inductive generalization based on common properties. I suggest, instead, that Kant distinguishes between judgements of taste, which do not require concepts, and logical generalizations that are based directly (...) on experience and that do allow concepts. ‘Beauty’ is used equivocally, but that frees Kant from the charge of logical error or self-contradiction. (shrink)

_Hume's Aesthetic Theory_ examines the neglected area of the development of aesthetics in empiricist thinking, exploring the link between the empiricist background of aesthetics in the eighteenth century and the work of David Hume. This is a major contribution to our understanding of Hume's general philosophy and provides fresh insights into the history of aesthetics.

Aesthetics is not a "factual" discipline; there are no aesthetic facts. The word itself is derived from the Greek word for "feeling" and the discipline arises because of the need to find a place for the passions within epistemology—the branch of philosophy that investigates our beliefs. Aesthetics is more than just the study of beauty; it is a study of that which appeals to our senses, most often in connection with the classification, analysis, appreciation, and understanding of art. The Historical (...) Dictionary of Aesthetics covers its history from Classical Greece to the present, including entries on non-western aesthetics. The book contains a chronology, a list of acronyms and abbreviations, an introductory essay, a bibliography, and hundreds of cross-referenced dictionary entries on the main concepts, terminology, important persons , and the rules and criteria we apply in making judgments on art. By providing concise information on aesthetics, this dictionary is not only accessible to students, but it provides details and facts to specialists in the field. (shrink)

The A to Z of Aesthetics covers its history from Classical Greece to the present, including entries on non-western aesthetics. The book contains a chronology, an introductory essay, a bibliography, and hundreds of cross-referenced dictionary entries on the main concepts, terminology, important persons , and the rules and criteria we apply in making judgments on art. By providing concise information on aesthetics, this dictionary is not only accessible to students, but it provides details and facts to specialists in the field.

This volume is the third in a series intended to make the writings of Scottish philosophers more widely available to modern readers. The series is under the general editorship of Gordon Graham. Presumably the editorial decisions set out in the Series Editor’s Note at the beginning of the volume are his and are intended to be uniform throughout the series. Some, given the intent of the series, are reasonable decisions to modernize spelling and punctuation and to transliterate Greek passages. On (...) the other hand, some are worrisome, as in the decision to omit some original footnotes and re-title selections. Most problematic is the way the selections are documented. Reference is simply to a first publication date, not to a standard edition, and in the case of selections drawn from larger works, no way to locate the selection within the work is provided. For example, the reference to Hutcheson is to “London, 1725” but in fact the text does not correspond to the 1725 edition of the Inquiry into the Original of our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue but presumably to that of 1726 or 1728. There are differences between the first edition and the later ones not only of wording but of section numbering. And for example, two selections from Hume’s Treatise are referred only to the Treatise in general; no reference to the specific sections is provided. Granted that these are not intended as scholarly editions, but for someone who would like to follow up and either read more or check the context, this is likely to be a major annoyance, and it is hard to see why the book, part, and section would not be given for a work such as the Treatise. Anyone who might want to quote from the text would be in something of a quandary as to how to check the citations. (shrink)

This volume is the third in a series intended to make the writings of Scottish philosophers more widely available to modern readers. The series is under the general editorship of Gordon Graham. Presumably the editorial decisions set out in the Series Editor’s Note at the beginning of the volume are his and are intended to be uniform throughout the series. Some, given the intent of the series, are reasonable decisions to modernize spelling and punctuation and to transliterate Greek passages. On (...) the other hand, some are worrisome, as in the decision to omit some original footnotes and re-title selections. Most problematic is the way the selections are documented. Reference is simply to a first publication date, not to a standard edition, and in the case of selections drawn from larger works, no way to locate the selection within the work is provided. For example, the reference to Hutcheson is to “London, 1725” but in fact the text does not correspond to the 1725 edition of the Inquiry into the Original of our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue but presumably to that of 1726 or 1728. There are differences between the first edition and the later ones not only of wording but of section numbering. And for example, two selections from Hume’s Treatise are referred only to the Treatise in general; no reference to the specific sections is provided. Granted that these are not intended as scholarly editions, but for someone who would like to follow up and either read more or check the context, this is likely to be a major annoyance, and it is hard to see why the book, part, and section would not be given for a work such as the Treatise. Anyone who might want to quote from the text would be in something of a quandary as to how to check the citations. (shrink)