Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Feminism and tradition in aesthetics I edited by Peggy Zeglin Brand and Carolyn Korsmeyer. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references {p. ) and index. ISBN 0-271-01340-0 (cloth: acid-free paper)ISBN 0-271-01341-9 (paper: acid-free paper) l. Aesthetics. 2. Feminist theory. 3. Feminism and the arts. I. Brand, Peg. II. Korsmeyer, Carolyn. HQ1219.F45 1995 305. 42-dc20 94-13667 CIP Copyright © 1995 The Pennsylvania State University Chapters 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 20 were previously published as a special issue of the journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Fall 1990), copyright 1990 by The American Society for Aesthetics, and are reproduced here by permission of the Society. All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802-1003 It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State Univt•rsity 1'1 ('Ss to 11s(' ill'td free paper for the first printing of all clothbound books. Pubhratiom, 011 1111rna1t*d stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National St.111d.11d lw l11frn111ation Sciences- Permanence of Paper for Printed Librn1 y Mat1*1 111l�. ANSI ,:11 1 i1H IHHi1. Contents H 1 111 11111._t rations f'\11 I WIii d I\ rtl1ur C. Danto A1 k1111wl(*dh1J11cnts 1t,1, 111h11 tion: Aesthetics and Its Traditions Peggy Zeglin Brand and Carolyn Korsm eyer ( ;t.•nder and Eighteenth-Century Aesthetic T heory: New Ht.*adings of Traditional Theories of Taste, Be auty, and Sublimity Beautiful and Sublime: "Gender Totemism" in the Constitution of Art Paul Mattick, Jr. 2 Gendered Concepts and Hume's Standard of Taste Carolyn Korsmeyer 3 Intensity and Its Audiences: Toward a Feminist Perspective on the Kantian Sublime Timothy Gould 4 Stages on Kant's Way: Aesthetics, Morality, and t he Gendered Sublime Christine Battersby Select Bibliography to Part I ix xi xvii 1 23 27 49 66 88 115 II Aesthetic Responses: Subjective Differences and the Challenge to Traditional Theories of Appreciation 5 Oppressive Texts, Resisting Readers, and the Gendered Spectator: The "New" Aesthetics Mary Devereaux 6 The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectators bell hooks 7 A History of Music Renee Lorraine Select Bibliography to Part II III Feminist Art and the Refusal of Aesthetic Value 8 "Who Is Speaking?" Of Nation, Community, and First- Person Interviews Trinh T. Minh-ha 9 Interweaving Feminist Frameworks E Lizabeth Ann Dobie 10 Monologues from "Four Intruders Plus Alarm Systems" and "Safe" Adrian Piper 11 Revising the Aesthetic-Nonaesthetic Distinction: The Aesthetic Value of Activist Art Peggy Zeglin Brand Select Bibliography to Part III IV Feminism and the Interpretation of ArtworkH 12 Has Her(oine's) Time Now Come? Anita Silvers 13 Feminist Art History and De Facto Sig11il11.11111* Susan L. Feagin 117 121 142 160 186 189 193 215 235 245 273 275 279 305 ( 11nt1•11t•1 VII 11 l.t*rni:11 do d:i Vi11n aud CH*at1w F('111al(* Nature Mmy n. (,'urrard 11 1 Motlwrs and Daughters: Ancient and Modem Myths H llm / landler Spitz 1 1, Tlw Image of Women in Film: A Defense of a Paradigm Noel Carroll • ,1 •11 *ct I �ibliography to Part IV V Ft•minism and Aesthetics: Directions for the Future I'/ Analytic Aesthetics and Feminist Aesthetics: Neither/Nor? Joanne B. Waugh I H Reconciling Analytic and Feminist Philosophy and Aesthetics Joseph Margolis I \J Why Feminism Doesn't Need an Aesthetic (An d Why It Can't Ignore Aesthetics) RitaFelski 20 The Role of Feminist Aesthetics in Feminist Theory Hilde Hein Select Bibliography to Part V l 11111 ributors lnclcx ,. 326 354 371 392 395 399 416 431 446 464 467 471 Acknowledgments This project was first undertaken as a special issue of the Journal of Aesthetics ,md Art Criticism. For their help and encouragement during the time that the HIWCial issue was produced and thereafter as it developed into a book, we would like to thank the late John Fisher, editor of the Journal of Aesthetics and A rl Criticism until 1988, Donald Crawford, editor of the journal from 1988 to I !1!)3, Arthur C. Danto, president of the American Society for Aesthetics from I !189 to 1991, and Roger Shiner, secretary-treasurer of the American Society lor Aesthetics. We would also like to thank Laurie Shrage and Mary Bittner Wiseman for their helpful reviews of the manuscript. We are grateful to Nancy Sp(•ro for her generosity in allowing us to reproduce her artwork on the cover. Introduction: Aesthetics and Its Traditions Peggy Zeglin Brand and Carolyn Korsmeyer Any entry into the lists of scholarship takes its place among the received and cl,*vcloping ideas of its time. Feminist scholarship has a particular obligation to I w reflective about this and to situate itself in the furiously changing history ol challenges, questionings, and deconstructions of traditional systems of understanding that have taken place over the last quarter century. Approaches to the study of women and ,of gender ! to the differences represented by w1•nder, sexual desires, and racial, ethnic, and national identities, have moved 110 very rapidly that it is difficult even for the diligent reader to keep informed. At the same time feminist methodologies, assumptions, and insights have cl«*vdoped unevenly, such that what is common presumption in one field of ,,tudy may be perplexingly nonstandard even to feminists in another. Some of the diversity of feminist scholarship proceeds from expectable chlft*rcnces of opinions about subjects under investigation, such as the role of h1ology in the formation of gender or the independence of fem ale cultural 11.ulitions, to mention just two long-standing themes of debate. At other times, tins diversity is entangled in one of the most notable reforms of research that lc•111i11ism has fostered: the tren:iendous growth of scholarship that trades 111e•thodologies across disciplines. From the early days of their endeavors, lc•111inist scholars have rightly perceived that barriers to thorough understand1111{ of issues concerning women, sex, gender, patriarchy, and social diversity ,11 c • ronstituted by traditions of inquiry themselves that proscribe what is 1 onsidercd legitimate research within recognized disciplinary frameworks. The l1lt111 ing of conventional academic divisions of study has dramatically enhanced 1 IIC' .ulv,mccment of feminist scholarship. Sw11(•timcs, however, what is proclaimed as interdisciplinary scholarship not 1111ly I t'jects and supplants but also forgets or ignores what have been staple 1•1 c111*s of inquiry. Reflection on this phenomenon focuses attention on the 111111plc•xili(*s of traditions and their overthrow. The essays collected in Femi- "''"' mu/ 'f'mdition in Aesthetics shed light on the tenacity-sometimes 2 Introduction tyrannical, sometimes useful-of various traditions in philosophies of the arts and theories of aesthetics. What cultural and intellectual frameworks inform our thinking about perception, beauty, art, and culture? And how have these influenced and been perpetuated by scholarly writing in aesthetics and philosophy of art? The essays collected herein are contributions by scholars in several disciplines, but they all address directly or implicitly aspects of the philosophical tradition. In what follows we speculate about the particular and idiosyncratic development of feminism in philosophical aesthetics; we seek to clarify its traditions and to indicate both how these traditions have resisted feminist inroads and how they afford important territory for feminist analyses. In the 1990s there is already much well-known feminist scholarship in the arts, especially in literature and literary theory, art history and criticism, and film studies. The field of philosophy too has seen the development of a body of feminist thinking, particularly in the areas of philosophy of science and ethics. The philosophical subdiscipline of aesthetics, on the other hand, has only just begun to develop a feminist presence. One need only look at the syllabus for a standard introductory course or review the recommended reading list for a Ph.D. comprehensive exam in aesthetics to realize that the appearance of feminist scholarship is infrequent, if present at all. 1 In light of twenty-five years of rich and stimulating feminist thought on the arts-£ eminist challenges applicable to the foundations of philosophical aesthetics-we ask, "Why, in the 1990s, are feminist writings still rare?" The same question arises when one considers journal publication. The first special issue of an academic philosophy journal in English devoted to feminism was The Monist 57, no. 1 (January 1973). Later the same year Philosophical Forum published another special issue. Shortly thereafter the journal Ethics began publishing feminist pieces, and even the journal of Philosophy and other mainstream journals have had their occasional feminist pieces over the last decades. In short, while still a distinctly maverick voice, feminism has been heard in philosophy for quite some time. It comes as a surprise to learn, therefore, that the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism did not have any feminist presence whatsoever until 1990 with the publication of the special issue that became the basis for this collection (48, no. 4 [Fall 1990]). Conversely, the journal of feminist philosophy, Hypatia, saw few entries in aesthetics until the publication of its own special issue on the subject, also in 1990 (5, no. 2 [Summer 1990]). 2 This phenomenon is even more perplexing if one bears in min.d that the cognate disciplines of aesthetics, such as literary theory, art history, and film studies, have been among the academic vanguard of feminism since the early 1970s. This peculiar absence of Aesthetics and Its Traditions 3 l1•111inism from the area of philosophy that-at first glance-looks to be ,1111ong the most obvious for the entry of feminist scholarship deserves some 1 rn11ment. The following speculations hazard some answers as to why this has li1*1*11 the case. Within the field of philosophy, aesthetics comprises a rather small area. The p rofessional society devoted to the field is an interdisciplinary society, though t lw majority of its members are philosophers. 3 Quite a few of these are also 11,11 ticipants in other philosophical fields, notably philosophy of science, ethics, plulosophy of law, metaphysics, epistemology, and various areas in the history nl philosophy. In short, philosophers who work in aesthetics are well con111•1Wd to other areas of philosophy, as well as to related disciplines such as 11111sicology, art history and criticism, and literature. The converse, however, is not the case. While a philosopher interested in ,u*�t hetics is expected to be familiar with other areas of the field such as ..t hirs, epistemology, logic, or metaphysics, practitioners in these latter 111•1118 may consider themselves quite well educated without knowing even a ,111.,tlering of aesthetic theory. (Even in 1951, John Passmore lamented this l,11 t, wondering whether [mere] philistinism was to blame.)4 Aesthetics and l1*111111ist philosophy thus share an unenviable parallel: their scholars must know llw work of others, though the others feel no reciprocal need to learn about , ttllt'r aesthetics or feminism. Therefore, to a degree the absence of feminist p1•1 :-ipectives from aesthetics has been occasioned by bad intellectual habits. II these disciplinary ruts were the only factors to consider, the matter would lu* lll<'rely of interest for sociology of knowledge, (or if one is feeling 1 v111ral, sociology of the academy). But there are also matters of considerable 111htitance involved that concern basic presumptions about beauty, value, and 11 I, in short, about the "tradition" to which this volume refers. Considering 1h, .. i1' factors requires an excursion into the issues that lie at the heart of t I w discipline. Traditions of Aesthetics 111 th1* longer version of its name, this field is known as "aesthetics and plulrnwphy of art." Aesthetic theories are often principally about art, but the t we, 1 omponcnt terms actually point in different if overlapping directions. "Aes- l l11•l 1n1" is th(' more recent area of study, having developed in early modern I• 111 or>C'an theory. It pt'rtains lo lhC'ories of perception that are interested in . •• 4 Introduction discovering the nature of the apprehension of beauty and other perceptual qualities of intrinsic value. The objects of aesthetic perception may or may not be works of art. As the philosophers of the eighteenth century whose founding interest is credited with the generation of the modern discipline observed, nature and mathematics could provide examples of aesthetic objects just as well as art. The chief goal of classic aesthetic theory is to investigate the bases for shared taste and perception of value. (A fuller discussion of these issues is presented in the preface to Part I.) "Philosophy of art," like so many areas of philosophy, has been around since Plato. It concerns itself with the nature of creativity and of art objects, their value and social role, and their power to form character and convey knowledge. If beauty or other aesthetic qualities are held to be the presiding values for art, then theories of beauty become part of philosophy of art. And insofar as art theorists analyze perception, then the two areas of "aesthetics" and "philosophy of art" converge. (Because this is frequently the case in the modern period, the term "aesthetics" is often used as shorthand for the entire area of study.) Interest in perception and appreciation of works of art gener- ates theories of the nature of interpretation and criticism and the ascription of meaning to cultural products. In this latter dimension aesthetics overlaps-in scope if not method-with critical studies of the arts. In what is perhaps the most obvious sense, tradition for all these areas of aesthetics consists of so-called classics or canonical texts in the field and may be discovered by looking at required reading in university programs. s While the content of instructional texts varies, there is considerable de facto agreement about what constitutes the staple readings of the field. Teaching anthologies typically include entries from Plato, Aristotle, Hume, and Kant in their historical sections, and often also include selections from writers such as Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger. These texts are generally famil- iar to scholars in other areas of philosophy and in the arts-related disciplines and are customarily acknowledged as of formative importance (and thus "canonical") for general intellectual history. When it comes to entries that deal with problems of contemporary aesthetics, the standard pieces shift character to much narrower disciplinary considerations. Some names remain widely familiar, especially those recent writers who are influential across disciplines such as Ricoeur, Foucault, or Derrida. But many others are new to all but those already practicing in aesthetics: names such as Bullough, Stolnitz, Sibley, Kennick, Weitz, Beardsley, that have been staple entries in aesthetics for decades and grow out of the ambient traditions of Anglo-American analytic philosophy. Aesthetics and Its Traditions 5 The "tradition" within and against which feminist perspectives are developed 111 the essays collected here is thus best considered in the plural. It is 1111possible to discern clean categories within cultural history, but our purposes 111 c* served by distinguishing two aspects of tradition: the most familiar and wc•ncral tradition of Western philosophy that has shaped modern consciousness 11hout art in a wide sweep of disciplines;6 and the more recent philosophical p1 1*ccdents that have influenced aesthetics. 7 Both of these connect with critical t 1,ulitions regarding the interpretation and ascription of meaning to cultural pwducts. Here we devote the most attention to the twentieth-century meth111111 and approaches practiced in American philosophy; they form the principal lull'kdrop for the variety of views that come to be united in this volume. 1 llstorical Traditions of Western Aesthetics I he• greatest theoretical continuity within the Western tradition in aesthetics c 111t•11ds only since the eighteenth century, although roots of modern ideas go ,lc•c*p and have parallels as far back as classical antiquity. Any tradition that trnn•s its roots as far back as Plato is going to contain considerable variety, nut to mention contrariety. The concept of art has not been a stable one; 11111,*c*d, the idea of "fine art" is itself a product of early modern European 111tc*llt•ctual history. 8 But even shearing off the older history of philosophy of 111 t, there have been so many varieties of theory in the last several hundred vc•,1111 that even the modern traditions contain irreconcilable theories of art and ,u*Ht lwtic value. Some of their differences are signaled by the several "isms" ul the• field, such as the formalisms of Kant, Bell, and Hanslick; the idealisms ul I lt•gcl, Schopenhauer, and Croce; the expressionisms of Collingwood, l111'4toy, and Kandinsky. These categories are not exhaustive, their terms of 1l1•H11 iption are not always univocal, and their memberships overlap and shift, ,trpc•nding upon the aspect of art or theory under attention. Moreover, while 111 110111(• respects the frequent entry of a thinker in a teaching text indicates an 11111101 tance credited to his (or occasionally her) theory, 9 some of their voices 111• c*nt t*rcd as oddities or examples of extremist views and have not had the 1u1111e• influence over theory formation as the weight of their names would 11lll(l(c'HI. (Such is the case with Tolstoy and Dewey, for example, both of wl111111 <k*part from the conventional assignment of high importance to the fine ,11 t 11 .111<1 r<'commend an overthrow of traditional aesthetic values. )10 I• vc •11 among those who have exerted long influence over the formation of 1111*111 y, tlwrc is ronsidcrablc disagreement on such questions as the essential 11111111 c* of a, t, the natur<' of creativity, and the character of the experience of . •• 6 Introduction beauty and other aesthetic values. Generalization, therefore, must proceed cautiously. Bearing these caveats in mind, we may yet step back and notice that the vast majority of these theories share two presumptions. They capture not only aspects of philosophical theories of art and aesthetics, but also the ideas about art that hold sway in the popular imagination and are thus broadly influential over the ways we thought and still think about the place of art in our lives. First of all, it is rarely questioned that art's value transcends cultural differences and is a source of timeless and everlasting value. This ideal lies behind many popular cultural establishments, such as the notion that museums and libraries are important public institutions that guard the culture of the past for present and future generations. It subtends appeals to the value of liberal education in the humanities. And statements manifesting this value are present in theories that are otherwise vastly different. One could hardly find more divergent philosophical sensibilities than those of Hume and Heidegger, yet Hume observes that "The same Homer, who pleased at Athens and Rome two thousand years ago, is still admired at Paris and at London. All the changes of climate, government, religion, and language, have not been able to obscure his glory. "11 And Heidegger credits the timelessness of great art as providing a glimpse of Truth (the "unconcealedness of being"). 12 Any created object of such a character must be the product of an unusual sensibility, and thus the artist who is capable of providing us with Art is often credited with Genius. Kant called genius the talent that "gives the rule to art," and Schopenhauer places art and the artist in fully reverent terms when he states that Art is the work of genius, which "repeats the eternal Ideas apprehended through pure contemplation, the essential and abiding element in all the phenomena of the world. " 13 Several of the authors of these scattered references express certain ideas of European Romanticism, though in their views about the special insight of the artist and the lasting value of art they echo ideas both more ancient and more modem. That theorists who differ on so many points should agree on the universal value of art indicates the depth of this presumption about the nature and character of art. Of course, that a vast array of thinkers should credit art with lasting importance is hardly surprising and not on the face of it particularly sinister. However, the collateral ideas that are invoked to explain the timeless value of art are ones that have come in for sharp critique from feminists. The brief quotes above indicate, for example, that the value of art is linked with the special mind of artists, and thus these theories give rise to a picture of the artistic Genius, a figure deeply inflected with masrulinc properAesthetics and Its Traditions 7 1, , .. , both historically and conceptually. 14 (Several of the essays in this volume • 1111tinue discussion of the links between the concept of genius, the value of ,11 1, and the corollary evaluation of art by women; see Chapters 4, 12, and 13.) There is a second common presumption underlying the broad sweep of l11l1•lkctual history that constitutes this tradition. This pertains to the nature ••I .,ppreciation of art and stipulates the state of mind that characterizes the ,1pp1 d1cnsion of beauty, sublimity, and artistic greatness. It is held that the ,1,111• of aesthetic contemplation is a principal instance of intrinsic value; it t.1h1*H one out of one's own self-concerns and peculiarities and into a state of 111111d that may be shared by any other human being. Thus it affords an • 11 ,11w from the individual ego and unites all who experience it in a common tppwriation, transhistorical and transcultural. 11 m; assumption is less widespread in the history of philosophy and art 1 111"111 y lhan is the former, but it is very strong in theory from the eighteenth • • 11t 11 y well into our own time. Perhaps it finds its purest expression in Kant's /\11,1ly tic of the Beautiful," where free beauty is characterized as disinterested 111, ,1>1111 <' taken in representation. Or in Schopenhauer's articulation of aesthetic 11t,*11tum as a will-less state where the sense of self is lost and one is no longer 111111111 hy time and place. It finds its way into artwriting in Clive Bell's 11, 11 1 1pt ion of the appreciation of "significant form." In less extreme forms we 1111.t ., hm;t of views that typify aesthetic contemplation as a state of mind that el l,111n•s the perceiver from ordinary, mundane aspects of life. 1s And the very 11 1 111 ",1t•sthetic" qualities, referring to the presentational qualities of an object 111 11 I Ir om its instrumental, economic, or political characteristics, represents 11111l11111a tion of the idea that aesthetic value occupies its own domain, separable h 11111 ,1>tp<*cts of practical life.16 11111 h t hcse tenets about art and aesthetic value rely on a presumption that I 11111 1*1 fire from several directions at the present time: namely, that art and 111 llwt1c a ttention are both in some sense universal. By "universal" it is 1 1 ll'd that art and aesthetic value possess at least ideally the same value 1111 • Vl'r yonc, that they bind people together in experience. These two broad llu 11111 h ave been challenged repeatedly in the latter part of this century, both lcv l1*111111ists and postmodernists, and earlier by followers of Wittgenstein. 1,, l111rnl1•1nism's challenge is especially acute on the issue of the universality I •• *,t hl'I ir appreciation. It questions the notion of common subjectivity and h1 111 ,. 1111dt•nnincs what is strongest about theories that delimit a distinct area ,I u •11111•1 ir consciousness: their demonstration of a common human faculty Iii ,1 111111 *� all tog<"lhcr and pcnnits transcendence of cultural barriers. h 1,u,111 1 •:, <*s1wcial ly t hosr who study cri tical disciplines such as literary and 8 Introduction film theory, have developed critiques of the broad Western tradition that are by now becoming familiar: that the universal subject is historically situated (masculine, patriarchal, imperialistic); and that the concept of fine or high art, along with the notion of artistic genius, is exclusionary both historically and conceptually. Several of the essays in this volume advance such critiques of modem European philosophical aesthetics, especially those in Part I. The essays in Part II continue feminist critiques of theories of aesthetic apprecia- tion by considering the alternative theories of the gaze as illuminating modes of understanding the apprehension of visual art. (This challenge is discussed more fully in the preface to Part II.) It is less well known that the history of analytic aesthetics has contained parallel objections to systematic theories of the arts and of aesthetic apprecia- tion-objections that, while not feminist in character, provide more congenial company for feminist thinking than is ordinarily expected in philosophy. While at present many feminists regard analytic philosophy as a stultifying predecessor and look to European philosophy and its psychoanalytic cousins for the richer theoretical tools by which to understand gender, culture, and historical contingency, the early analytic tum was reacting to certain concerns that feminists share, notably skepticism about essentialism. The recent history of aesthetics and philosophy of art in this tradition is the subject we tum to next. The character and history of analytic aesthetics helps further to explain the late arrival of feminism to the scene. Analytic Aesthetics In certain respects philosophers of the analytic school continued the older traditions of aesthetics. For example, the tenet that aesthetic value and aesthetic qualities require definition in contrast to moral and practical proper- ties remained strong in this school of thought. Thus continuity with the eighteenth-century theories of taste mentioned above is especially evident.17 But in other dramatic respects analytic philosophy broke radically with its precursor traditions, particularly those speculative philosophies of the nine- teenth and early twentieth centuries that offered systematic theories of art embedded in metaphysical constructs. Hegelian and post-Hegelian idealist theories such as those of Benedetto Croce came under fire, although the general complaint eventually was directed to any aesthetic theory that at- tempted a systematic, essentialist definition of art. Thus in the 1940s and 1950s, philosophers developed their own idiosyncratic sense of "tradition" in which "tradition" came to mean "pn• analyt ir," that is, Aesthetics and Its Traditions 9 works by authors predating Bertrand Russell, G. E. Moore, and others writing 111 the early years of this century who turned away from the speculative Idealist 11yHlems that at the time were models of philosophical methodology. In terms 111 aesthetics, this notion of tradition congealed in mid-century with the hmdsight of theorists heavily influenced by Wittgenstein, who were dissatisfied with the essentialism, romanticism, idealism, and what they perceived to be tlu• endemic vagueness of their predecessors. Thus in 1958 William E. lwm1ick began his essay "Does Traditional Aesthetics Rest On a Mistake?" by 11tap11lating, in no uncertain terms, what he meant by "traditional aesthetics": "By 'traditional aesthetics' I mean that familiar philosophical discipline which • orr('t'rns itself with trying to answer such questions as the following: What is Ar It What is Beauty? What is the Aesthetic Experience? What is the Creative A, t I What are the criteria of Aesthetic Judgment and Taste? What is the l1111dion of Criticism?"18 Irr 1948 W. B. Gallie had laid out "The Function of Philosophical Aesthetics" 111 ,111 attack on the essentialist doctrines of Croce and Collingwood. He not 11111v called for an "informed skepticism" about all generalities concerning art, lu- ,also turned an analytic eye to art-critical literature, urging careful rewriting 111 11hscure and logically faulty criticism, pegging Wordsworth as his prime , 1rn111ple. 19 That same year, Arnold Isenberg delivered an address to the 1\1111•1 ican Society for Aesthetics, later published under the title, "Critical l 11111111unication," in which he called for a similar redirection of energies. 20 In 1111 Vt'ry title, John Passmore's "The Dreariness of Aesthetics" (1951) could 11111 have been clearer in expressing the growing sentiment to abandon all work 1111 cl,*finitions of art, beauty, aesthetic experience, and the underlying princi111,.,. common to all "good" works of art. Five years later Morris Weitz puhhshed "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics," in which he argued against "any 1tt,•111pl to state the defining properties of art," sounding the death knell 1111 "tr aditional" theory: "theory-in the requisite classical sense-is never 1111 t lwoming in aesthetics," he proclaimed. 21 I hus the period during and just after World War II witnessed a prolific 1111111llt'r of writings in analytic aesthetics, coinciding with the shift of the center 111 tht• artworld from Paris to New York, the rise of abstract expressionism with rts attendant critic-devotees, and, interestingly enough, the formation and M' 11wt h of the fledging interdisciplinary group, the American Society for A, 'llht•tirs. Writing decades later, Richard Shusterman reconstructed the way 11 lul11•1opll('rs must have felt at the time, namely, that analytic aesthetics came 111111.: 111st in time to "clarify" the "murky confusion" of the tradition.22 Ac 1111 clang to Shusterm�m. analytic a<•sthctics recommended a threefold assault 10 Introduction upon tradition-anti-essentialism, metacriticism (seeking to clarify art criti- cism), and adoption of the paradigmatic methodology of scientific in9uiry. One would surmise that this promoted some antagonism between philosophers who saw aesthetics as metacriticism and critics who saw no need or use for philosophers. As aestheticians invaded the domain of criticism, offering to "rewrite" critical copy they found faulty and obscure, it comes as no surprise to find, at least within the publications of the ASA's journal, that the number of nonphilosophers' contributions consistently diminished throughout its fifty- year history. 23 It is evident that the feminist scholarship that emerged from disciplines such as art history and literary theory in the early 1970s would not be welcomed by this particular legacy of the analytic tradition. And yet, ironically, the impetus behind the initial feminist critiques of art history in the 1970s shares a certain orientation with analytic aesthetics of mid-century, specifically its skepticism about the univocity of "art" and its call to examine closely the way critical language actually functions, rather than to rely on hortatory prescriptions about how great art ought to be enjoyed. Linda Nochlin's ground-breaking essay of 1971, "Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?" launched an entire movement centered on women's involve- ment in the arts. 24 In her review of the systematic exclusion of fem ale artists from teaching studios and other realms of art instruction, Nochlin also suggested that because of its history, the traditional idea of fine art (and attendant concepts such as genius) may continue to overlook the creative products customarily undertaken by women. Such analyses of the concept of art also contributed to the early questioning of the "canon" and of the standards that have chosen its membership. Feminist scholarship has unearthed women artists, writers, and musicians of the past that were oftentimes well known, amply commissioned, and self-supporting in their day but were subsequently omitted from the canon of "greats" in the written histories of art. 25 These studies prompted skepticism about the "canon" of great art, leading feminists in the direction of more theoretical and abstract pursuits such as deconstructive analyses of the underlying assump- tions of critical standards. A "new art history" was taking hold, emphasizing the "work of art itself as a piece of history" as opposed to the traditional focus on "the development and achievement of period styles, the history or sequence of works. "26 In their studies of the language of art history and criticism, feminist scholars began to explore the concepts of "greatness" and "genius" and why women never succeeded in acquiring either accolade. As with earlier anti-essentialism, definitions of "art" were rejected. To feminists, they were S<'<'n ;1:,; limiting and Aesthetics and Its Traditions 11 11pp1 t*ssive: privileging "high" art over low, "fine" art over craft, men's art 11v1•1 women's. Early on, enthusiasm ran high that something like a female 11,1t111t* was discernible and that a woman's art or a feminine sensibility could lw d11wovered. 27 It was overturned by another strain of anti-essentialism that 1111 wwd not only on gender differences but differences within gender of 111111011ality, race, class. The entire foundation of interpretation and evaluation 11111w undone as feminists, in rejecting the conventional meanings assigned • 111011ical works and texts, also questioned the obviousness of the intrinsic 1111 * 1 ll !'l of Great Art. Thus, the first collection of feminist art-historical essays, I, 111111ism and Art History: Questioning the Litany, sought to distinguish itself It 1 1111 catalogues and monographs by examining "Western art history and the , -11*111 to which it has been distorted, in every major period, by sexual bias. "28 ,111111,11 ly, Rozsika Parker and Griselda Pollock's ground-breaking work, Old M,,/,,•ssrs: Women, Art and Ideology sought to establish strategies to subvert 11111 , ollapse stereotypes of women and their art by means of analyzing w, 111 w11 'H historical and ideological position within the world of art production. 29 1 h, 1 lt•ss than twenty years, feminist critiques have broadened in scope to 1 111111111w historical reclamation, linguistic analysis, sociological explanation, and plr1l111ophical questioning of the underlying assumptions of the traditions of a 11 11'1 v of fields. 30 Wlul,* analytic aesthetics and feminist art history share a disposition to • 11111 11.1* the staple concepts of theories of art, it is still the differences between 1111 w 111ovements that are the most striking. Sharing as they may a skeptical 11111 p.111icularist method, they diverge profoundly in content and in the scope 111 11111••11 ions considered important to pursue. Subjects mentioning women and 111 11111•1 have been very difficult to insert into analytic philosophy generally, for 1111 •,1111ple reason that no such topics were considered "philosophical." Some 1"•1111111 of the philosophical literature of the twentieth century is mindful of the 11 ,t 111 1 • of philosophy itself, taking pains to distinguish this field from psychol1 •ii\. •111riology, or criticism. Part of the early resistance of analytic philosophy 111 1111' .ulvent of feminist perspectives in scholarship stemmed from the belief 11, ,1 •111hwrts that specify gender digress into another discipline, one that deals 111 , 1111111 rral data but not the abstract theorizing that marks philosophy. For 111111.11 11*:isons, philosophers have avoided the political dimension of art. 11, 111 ,. p,11 I of the charge of feminism to analytic aesthetics is that philosophers 1111 1w�d1•rt the cultural and historical context of a work of art, such as the 11• 11111*1 , 1 ,H'(', dass, ,md particular historical situation of the artist and her 1111111 ,u 1* Happily, the <'rn of erecting strict boundaries for legitimate philo11plt11 .,1 111q11i1 y has largdy passed, although its lingering influence accounts in 12 L.troduction part for the late entry of feminism into philosophical aesthetics. One can see a general discomfort regarding the limitations of scope of legitimate subject matter in recent reflections on the state of aesthetics in general and analytic aesthetics in particular. 31 It is important to note that despite early enthusiasms to the contrary, not all philosophers found (or continue to find) analytic aesthetics to be a panacea for critical and philosophical ills. The cyclical process of criticizing and replacing old ways with the new was bound to result in the new itself becoming old. Thus philosophers critical of analytic aesthetics have adopted yet another, more inclusive meaning of the term "tradition." For the authors in the 1980s and 1990s, "tradition" not only includes the pre-analytic, speculative, and Idealist traditions, but also the body of analytic writings that dominated American philosophy mid-century. The 1987 special issue of the journal of Aesthetics andArt Criticism provides a retrospective look at the past decades of analytic aesthetics and speculations about its future. The mood it conveys is quite different from that of earlier years. Somber and speculative, it brings to light the concerns and rumblings building for several years over the influx of "other" modes of thinking in aesthetics, including the deconstructive styles of poststructuralism. Shuster- man's introduction to the issue suggests that the future of analytic aesthetics is in doubt. As he puts it, the pressing issue is whether analytic aesthetics "needs an epitaph and (if it does) what should there be inscribed. "32 For some, the prospect of a postanalytic period ( or worse yet, as Shusterman adds, a postphilosophical era) was sobering. For others, it was a welcome relief. Anita Silvers asks the question this way: "Has Analysis Made Aesthetics Clear?"33 Referring to the original goals of Arnold Isenberg, W. B. Gallie, and Margaret Macdonald, she concludes that analytic aesthetics actually added to the dreariness cited by Passmore in 1951 by calling for too strict a revision of art-critical language and argument forms at the expense of fulfilling their function: to make art more accessible and appreciated. Praising the more recent theories of Arthur Danto and Nelson Goodman (discussed below) as exemplars of Isenberg's recommendation "to integrate insightful commentary on art with rigorous philosophical argument," Silvers encourages a return to a discussion of art objects to ground and advance theoretical concerns. To Marx Wartofsky, analytic aesthetics only succumbed to dreariness when put in a "derivative" or "dependent posture," that is, of relying upon previous analysis for its raison d'etre. His suggestion for infusing new life into the profession? Again, a return to the arts. 34 What emerges from a number of authors is a sense that, in spite of intentions to attend more closely to art 11al works of art, Aesthetics and Its Traditions 13 1111alytic philosophers became isolated from the world of art and too self- nhHorbed. (Roger Scruton, writing elsewhere, castigated aesthetics and philos- ophy in general, for retreating from artjstic and literary culture, thereby nh,111doning it to the deconstructionists, and for adopting "the rigour-or rigor m11rtis-of semantic analysis. ")35 These authors record what Joseph Margolis calls "a kind of increasing ,11 11ridal neglect of the leading themes of cultural life," in spite of attempts by /\rthur Danto and George Dickie to come to grips with the most provocative 1111 of the twentieth century. 36 Margolis has resisted the insularity of analytic ,wHthetics and suggests that the field can be resuscitated by accommodating nll forms of critique, including Continental philosophy ("the historicist, herme- r u*ut ic, the preformational, structuralist and poststructuralist, the deconstruc11vc•, the genealogical, the praxical") and, specifically, feminism.37 Analytic approaches in aesthetics as described earlier and as the subject of 111114 n•cent critical reflection saw their glory days in mid-century. In the 1960s 111•141 lr<"tics as practiced by analytic philosophers began to shift its orientation, 111 hr st gradually, then with increasing rapidity in the 1970s and 1980s. A 1111tc*worthy catalyst for this shift was the publication in 1965 of Nelson I ,11rnhnan's Languages of Art. Goodman's previous work had been in meta- plrvHks and philosophy of science, not aesthetics, and thus perhaps he felt 1111111• carefree with regard to the standard questions framing philosophy of art. 11111 hook bypassed issues of the nature of artworks and the character of the ,11*•11 lwtic, concentrating rather on symbol systems and the logical relations h, I wt*t*n different kinds of symbols and their objects. The previous year fu I l111r Danto published his influential essay "The Artworld," which argued ,1w11111ii1 anti-essentialism and made legitimate again the exploration of the , 11111 1•p1 of art, replacing appeal to shared exhibited properties with relational pr 1111< *r I ies situating artworks in cultural space and historical contexts. ;j8 These 1111*,1'1 were further developed in The Transfiguration of the Commonplace f l'IH I) and put into practice in Danto's art criticism. 39 (Interestingly, this tltc*rrlron to symbols and to the relation of art to cultural contexts returns plulo'loplry of art to its earliest problematic: the nature of mimesis.)40 1 ,oodrnan, Danto, and Margolis are but three of the major theorists who h tvc• loHll'rcd a change in aesthetic theorizing toward the historical contexts in "lr11 h ,11 I tc1kes form and achieves meaning. The current approaches to art and , 11111111 * that typify present-day aesthetics are potentially rich for the develop- "" 111 of f1*minist perspectives, for they place attention to cultural frameworks 111111 lh1•11 hiHlorical contingencies at the heart of philosophies of art. They ,h,.1 11•, .. 11* onn* and for ;ill with th<" stubborn c1nalytic claim that descriptors of 14 Introduction social diversity derail philosophy into sociology. Therefore in a general way they are ineluctably (if not explicitly) politicized; as such they invite close inspection of the practices of institutions, especially their selection practices (whether patriarchal, class-based, colonialist). In spite of this potential, however, attention to feminism or to gender is still not a significant presence in contextualist theories, even those that are otherwise iconoclastic about time-honored dichotomies such as the distinction between fine art and craft and "high" or "low" art. Perhaps the cold hand of the earlier legacies of philosophy still touches the discipline. Then, too, the new contextualist theories, in returning to classic questions about the distinguishing attributes of art, have been more interested in discovering why and how an object becomes a recognized artwork than in investigating what is not so recognized or what has been shouldered out of the limelight. The task remains for feminists to cultivate this project as they explore useful intersec- tions between the advances made in (post-)analytic aesthetics and recent strategies of feminist theorizing. Interpretive Frameworks: The Ascription of Meaning to Art The self-reflective nature of recent analytical writing, such as that of Danto and Margolis, opens the door to exploring issues of gender and other sociopolitical aspects of art by highlighting the importance of the historical context of a work of art. Concurrent with this broadening of outlook in philosophy, feminism has already undergone several phases of self-reflection. A constant reassessment of artistic practices and interpretive approaches has fostered attention to what it means to analyze art in its fullest, broadest context. Although at times its character and tone might appear unrecognizable to those unschooled in its ways, analysis has always been part of feminist theorizing. 41 Its central purpose is a moving away from the entrenched, dominant, and limiting tenets of "patriarchal aesthetics," which permits only some predetermined aspects of a work to be considered contextually relevant, toward a strategy of less constrained attention to a variety of facets, determined by the historical moment and particular character of an experience. 42 Thus feminism and philosophy share an interest in the question of how the nature and boundaries of art are shaped by context. Thus far we have discussed matters that pertain to the philosophical traditions of aesthetics, especially theories of the nature of art and of aesthetic perception. We have said little directly regarding related disciplines and theories of interpretation or viewer and reader response; thus we have not Aesthetics and Its Traditions 15 1•11gaged the literature of theoretical criticism that has had such an influential h*111inist presence. Hei:e we shall not even attempt to summarize this massive h,*1<1; we refer readers to the bibliographies at the end of each of the five parts of the text. We shall, however, briefly discuss two issues that not only bear on llw common question of defining the parameters of contextual relevance, but 111•10 confront staple elements of the philosophic tradition discussed above: the plulosophy of mind employed by theories of the viewing subject, and the 11wthods by which aesthetically relevant properties of art are to be determined. Classic theories of aesthetic perception that were developed in eighteenth- • 1•11t ury philosophy were based upon a certain view of perception and of the 11111111. They presumed that the human mind should be considered in its basic 1 11111ponents as a kind of generic subjectivity, operating similarly in all fully It uu t ioning rational creatures. These philosophies-well aware that judgments 111 taste (assessments of artistic quality and value) often vary noticeably by 1111hviclual, historical period, and culture-were bent upon articulating the h,,•u•s for aestμetic pleasures that transcended these "incidental" differences. I lw, r1rticulation was made possible by the assumption that pure aesthetic pl,*,1s11re (often taken in formal relations or nature, objects of attention less , , lt,1111 on cultural fluency than complex works of art) is a basic capacity of the 11111111111 perceptive faculty. And this assumption is only possible if one first 111111111c.•s that beneath their contingent differences all minds are essentially 111111.,r. I lus model of the mind and of conscious experience has not been noticeably 11 1*1111 to feminists, whose interests focus on understanding the development 111 1(1*11dcred points of view and understanding the diverse positions of the 111 111 11line and the feminine in culture. Thus neither the generic consciousness 111 ,*,11 li<*r European philosophy, nor its theoretical orientation to formal aes1111 ltc pleasure has suited the aims of recent feminist theory. More complex 11111d1•ls of consciousness have been needed, suited to understanding the subtle 11111 d1*vious pleasures of representation. One of the most fruitful models of 11111111 .,vailable for this task has its roots in Freud's psychoanalytic theory and II I .11 anian modifications. 43 (Within the Anglo-American tradition, psychoanal- � 11 lt;1s not been widely embraced by philosophers writing in aesthetics.)44 I, 1111111slH have adapted psychoanalytic insights in order to formulate theories 111111 1• •,1*11:-;ilivc to gender and social position than either Enlightenment philoso- pltv III Anglo-American philosophy has provided. This body of scholarship has v11 lil1*d not only schools of reading and interpretation, but also a theoretical 111111 tl1,1t has bl'cn widely employed in feminist understandings of art: theories 111 1 lw H,tzt*. Supplanting older notions of aesthetic perception, theories of the 16 Introduction gaze analyze the pleasure to be found in representation by bringing to light the consciousness of the culturally prescribed viewer: a male of dominant social standing. Theories that employ the notion of the male gaze are one manifesta- tion of widespread suspicion of the older notion of a universal subject, and of assumptions of the transparency of the mind, such that one can know from introspection the nature of aesthetic pleasure. (In this volume, discussions of psychoanalytically informed feminism may be found in Chapters 5 and 6; modifications or challenges to psychoanalytic approaches are presented in Chapters 15 and 16.) Psychoanalysis is not the only recent theoretical movement to challenge traditional approaches to the appreciation and interpretation of art. Indeed, the vigorous effort on the part of feminists to situate artworks in their historical context and* to read their changing meaning for contemporary audiences confronts an old analytic question: What qualities actually "belong" to the work itself? In our discussion of the broad philosophical tradition, we noted two presumptions shared by most participant theorists: that the value of art is timeless and transhistorical, and that the apprehension of aesthetic qualities removes the perceiver from his or her particular and contingent situation. A certain approach to critical interpretation and evaluation of art is bound together with these two theses, namely, that whatever value art has, it possesses autonomously. The aesthetic qualities of art are thus available for appreciation without reliance on knowledge of anything outside the work of art itself. In an extreme form this view was enacted by the New Criticism of the 1940s and 1950s. Its most famous statement in aesthetics was made in 1946 with the publication of "The Intentional Fallacy" by Monroe Beardsley and W. K. Wimsatt, which objected to the relevance of what they called "nonaes- thetic" historical and contextual data, that is, data external to a work of art. 4s Critics of this view have hewn away at it for some time, but the question central to their claim-What are the parameters to legitimate artistic interpre- tation?-is as relevant as ever. Indeed, feminist criticism and art history have given this question new life, as scholars reinterpret the historical record and the legacy of artworks and as they assess both the treatment of women in art and the type of art produced by women. (See Chapters 12-14.) Virtually all feminist interpretive strategies give rise to the philosophical question of whether and how the gender of artists-as well as their other socially marked identities-are to count as properties of works of art and to be recognized as aesthetically relevant. (See also Chapter 9 for a discussion of feminist frameworks as schemata for interpretation.) But the role such factors play in ascribing meaning to t1rt is not Aesthetics and Its Traditions 17 11lways clear; hence the need for extending the dialogue between philosophy 1111d feminist art theory. l•'c:rninism and philosophy are fortunately situated at a moment of intersect111u interests that provides opportunities for transdisciplinary scholarship on • 11111mon theoretical questions. Though feminists are hesitant to prescribe any 111011olithic, unified feminist aesthetic, they are determined to maximize and • 1d1*nd discussions of the role of gender in cultural production. (Chapter 19 111 uucs against an autonomous aesthetic while still emphasizing the aesthetic.) ',11111t* envision feminist theory relocated more centrally within aesthetic 11111111ry; others worry about the incompatibility of feminism with long-standing 11u1lylic and Continental philosophical concerns. (See Chapters 17, 18, and •11 I Others seek more linguistic analysis and the study of intertextuality, p111 *,11ing strategies that cope with texts the meanings of which are determined l,y I on text but the context of which can change without limits. 46 Still others 111,*h*r t1 sociological approach, emphasizing the social history of the discipline 111 1wiithetics and the ways it has influenced the production and reception of 111,wds deemed art.47 Recalling Alpers's characterization of the "new art 111 1111 y" in 1977, which brought attention to the "work of art itself as a piece 111 h1-1tory," these suggestive frameworks redirect concentration toward an , 111phasis on the actual practice of encountering and confronting art, in keeping wllh tlw reflective criticism of recent philosophical aesthetics. I II h of the parts that organize this volume is preceded by a short preface that , , v1,*ws the issues the essays address, expanding upon the topics of "tradition" tit 11 wt* have introduced here. The majority of our contributors have their 111 1ilc•111ic roots in philosophy; one is a psychoanalytic theorist, and others w111 k 111 the critical disciplines of art, music, and literature. Two are both , 11111,11 s and practicing artists. Adrian Piper, philosopher and graphic/concep11111 ,11 ltsl, and Trinh T. Minh-ha, literary scholar, composer, and filmmaker, t 1 111 c•1u-11l ways in which feminist perspectives on aesthetic value may be 1111 lc*il in the practices of art. We hope that these multidisciplinary approaches will lt111 h advance the growing work of feminism in aesthetics and prompt w1 11, P1 111 other fields to consider some of the issues as they are treated ltt It Ill W, h.1v1* stressed here the departure from tradition fostered by feminist I", 11w, tiv1*s; in doing so we have focused on the ways these essays review 1111 1w1t. Bui ii will be obvious that they equally well preview the future. We hope I h,11 I h1* philosophical slant of this book will contribute to the development 11l ll,111'1d1•1 1plinary thinking about art theory, concepts relevant to aesthetics, 18 Introduction and feminism. We urge more disciplinary dialogue among feminists in philoso- phy in order to link insights from other areas with philosophies of the arts. Topics in aesthetics can be usefully informed by recent feminist advances made in philosophy of science, epistemology, ethics, and political theory: for instance, challenges to traditional theories of rationality in which the disinterested, disembodied Cartesian knower is replaced by a conception of the knowing subject "as situated, as engaged and as a part of a corrununity" parallel feminist deconstructions of aesthetic perception. 48 Similarly, challenges to traditional moral theory's notion of an independent, impartial moral agent who is replaced by a model of moral thinking based on relationships, with moral actions arising out of responsibilities and affiliations rather than duties or rights, could be brought to bear on the aesthetic assessment of the moral and political value of art. Might this cast a different light on the traditionally valued Romantic notion of the independent (male) genius? How would the feminist notion of an "ethics of care" affect the interpretation and evaluation of woman's crafts, for example, quilts? political activist art? How does the evaluation of women's art mesh with traditional political theory, which bifurcates the public and private realms? How is the status of women in the worlds of art further complicated by issues of race, class, culture, and sexual identities?49 And more reflexively, how does philosophy enter into the web of determinants concerning how we think about art? The essays gathered here begin to investigate the traditions of aesthetics and to determine the power of theoreti- cal frameworks themselves to invite or constrain recognition of artists and cul- tures. Notes 1. Of the many existing anthologies recently published, only three contain entries on feminism: John W. Bender and H. Gene Blocker, eds., Cont,emporary Philosophy of Art: Readings in Analytic Aesthetics (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1993); Stephen David Ross, ed., Art and Its Significance, 2d ed. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987); and Patricia Werhane, ed. Philosophical Issues in Art (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1984). The selection of essays for teaching collections has come in for earlier criticism. In 1973 Mary Mothersill complained that "the same essays appear in each new anthology'' (introduction, Aesthetics and the Theory of Criticism: Select,ed Essays of Arnold Isenberg (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), xix-xx. 2. Feminist interest in the body and norms for female beauty have prompted steady attention in this journal. Hypatia, moreover, has published a number of articles devoted to or influenced by French feminism, including a special issue edited by Nancy Fraser and Sandra Bartky (3, no. 3 [Winter 1989)). This type of theory is particularly sensitive to style and to n1oclt*11 of pn•s<'ntation Aesthetics and Its Traditions 19 11 ideas and thus is at least tangentially relevant to aesthetics even when the subject under 1liHrussion is something else. :i. On the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary, Lydia Goehr documents the membership of the /\1 nt•rican Society for Aesthetics and the authorship of articles in its main publication, the Journal 11/ /\rsthetics and Art Criticism: see "The Institutionalization of a Discipline: A Retrospective of flll' Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism and the American Society for Aesthetics, 1939-1992," /:11\C.: 51, no. 2 (Spring 1993). Members of the ASA numbered 957 in 1992 (as compared to u11proximately 7000 members of the American Philosophical Association). Overall, 46 percent of tlunrticles in theJAAC written between 1941 and 1991 were by philosophers; however, between l'M I and 1951, 35 percent were written by philosophers whereas between 1981 and 1991, philosophers authored 70 percent. 1. John Passmore, "The Dreariness of Aesthetics," Mind 60 (1951). This essay is reprinted 111 William Elton, ed., Aesthetics and Language (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1954), and in Francis J. 1 11lc•man, ed., Aesthetics: Cont,emporary Studies in Aesthetics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968). !,. With the advent of the J. Paul Getty funding in the form of the DBAE (Discipline-Based Art I 1l11ration), which includes the multiple disciplines of studio art, art criticism, art history and ,, �tlwtics, philosophical issues have been introduced into the K-12 curriculum in certain areas of 1 lucountry. The readings in aesthetics in those curricula replicate standard "canonical" texts, 1h,•11*by educating future generations to be more philosophically astute in their discussions of art, ll11111gh no broader in outlook than their predecessors. H. There are cultural precedents in Asia, Africa, and elsewhere in which philosophies reflect 111,, mscparability of the arts from other aspects of life, precedents that have provided models for 11 11e* feminist scholars. Renee Lorraine, whose essay "A History of Music" appears in this ,11h1 11t', is one such scholar. See also her "A Gynecentric Aesthetic," in Aesthetics in Feminist /'m/ll'tlive, ed. H. Hein and C. Korsmeyer (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1993). As a 1 11h* lhese non-Western traditions have not played much of a role in the United States either in ,u �tht•tics or in philosophy generally. 'I. Both the long and the recent intellectual traditions have ignored consideration of sex and 11• ml1*r in their theorizing. But while feminism is beginning to establish an increasingly well known , 11tlc111c of the former, Anglo-American traditions have been largely neglected until very recently. M11 1* feminist work has been done on analytic epistemology and philosophy of science. For some IM'11hc treatments of this method, see Jane Duran, Toward a Feminist Epistemology (Savage, M,I * Rowman and Littlefield, 1991) and Lynn Hankinson Nelson, Who Knows: From Quine to I r111111ist Empiricism (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990). H. Sec Paul Osker Kristeller, "The Modem System of the Arts," Journal of the History of /,Ir"' 12-13 (1951-52), widely reprinted; and L. Lipkii,g, The Ordering of the Arts in Eight,eenth1 , 11/lirv England (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970) for discussions of the develop111, nt of the idea of the fine arts in the early modem period. 1 1. There were several women active in the early days of analytic aesthetics, including M,11 g111 ('t Macdonald, Helen Knight, Katherine Gilbert (coauthor with Helmut Kuhn of A History ,,1 :l1•1/h1•tics [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, rev. ed. 1953]), and Isabel Creed Hunger- I 11111 < :ilb<'rt and Hungerland each served two-year terms as president of the ASA, in 1946 and 11111!1 rc*spcctively. The content of their scholarship did not deviate significantly from the general , 11 11,*111s of the male-dominated group. Probably the best-known book in aesthetics by a woman I •,w1.1111K' Langer's Feeling and Form (1953). IO Somt* feminists have found in pragmatism a neglected American tradition that is congenial 1 1 1,,111111ism. Sec the special issue of Hypatia, edited by Charlene Haddock Siegfried, devoted to lo 1111111H111 and pragmatism (8, no. 2 [Spring 1993)). A recent appreciation of Dewey also can be 111111111111 Hichard Shusttm1an's PraR"malislAestlzetics (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1992). 11 I ).rvicl I hmit". "Of tht• Standard of 'fastc" (1757), in Aesthetics: A Critical Anthology, ed. G. 111, kll', It SC'iafo1 i, and I{. lfohlin (N<'w York: St. Martin's Prrss, 1977), 596. 20 Introduction 12. See "The Origin of the Work of Art," in Art and Its Significance, ed. Stephen David Ross (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2d ed., 1987). 13. Arthur Schopenhauer, The World As W ill andRepresentatwn, 2 vols., trans. E. F. J. Payne (New York: Dover, 1969; first published 1859), 1: 184. 14. See, for example, Christine Battersby, Gender and Genius (London: Women's Press; Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989); and Whitney Chadwick, Women, Art, and Society (London: Thames and Hudson, 1990). 15. See Kant, The Crili(Jue of Judgment (1790), especially the "First Moment of Beauty;" Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representatwn (1819); Clive Bell, Art (1914); and Edward Bullough, " 'Psychical Distance' as a Factor in Art and an Aesthetic Principle" (1912), widely reprinted, including in Dickie, Sclafani, and Roblin, eds., Aesthetics: A CriticalAnthology. 16. More recent theories of the aesthetic may be found in Jerome Stolnitz, Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art Criticism (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1960) and Frank Sibley, "Aesthetic Concepts," Philcsophical Review 68, no. 4 (1959), and widely reprinted. 17. This continuity is explored by Jerome Stolnitz, "On the Origins of Aesthetic Disinterested- ness," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism (Winter 1961), widely reprinted, including in Dickie, Sclafani, and Roblin, eds., Aesthetics: A CriticalAnthology. 18. William E. Kennick, "Does Traditional Aesthetics Rest on a Mistake?" Mind 67 (1958), reprinted in Francis J. Coleman, ed., Aesthetics: Contemporary Studies in Aesthetics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968), 411. 19. W. B. Gallie, "The Function of Philosophical Aesthetics," Mind 57 (1948), reprinted in Coleman, ed., Aesthetics. 20. Arnold Isenberg, "Critical Conununication," Philosophical Review 58 (1949), widely re- printed. Isenberg also wrote an unpublished report to the Rockefeller Foundation in 1950 titled, "Analytical Philosophy and the Study of Art," only portions of which are published in Aesthetics and the Theory of Criticism: Selected Essays of Arnold Isenberg (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973). A detailed account of Isenberg's work in its historical context is provided by Anita Silvers, "Letting the Sunshine In: Has Analysis Made Aesthetics Clear?" originally published in Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 46 (1987) and reprinted in Bender and Blocker, eds., Contemporary Philosophy of Art. 21. Morris Weitz, "The Role of Theory in Aesthetics," Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 15 (1956), widely reprinted. 22. See Richard Shusterman's introduction to Analytic Aesthetics (New York: Basil Blackwell, 1989), 1-19. A portion of these essays was originally published in a special issue of the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 46 (1987). 23. Lydia Goehr charts these decreasing numbers (see note 3 above.) The speculation offered here is ours. 24. Linda Nochlin's essay originally appeared in Art News 69 (January 1971) and is reprinted in her Women, Art, and Power and Other Essays (New York: Harper and Row, 1988). 25. The show "Women Artists: 1550-1950" and its accompanying catalogue brought to light works by women that were attributed to male artists, forgotten in museum basements, and obscured by the preponderance of "masterpieces" that hogged the limelight. See Ann Sutherland Harris and Linda Nochlin, Women Artists: 1550-1950 (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1976). References are too numerous to name in the brief description of the feminist movement offered here, but there are several synopses that might be helpful: Norma Broude and Mary D. Garrard, eds. Feminism and Art History: Questwning the Litany (New York: Harper and Row, 1982); Thalia Gouma-Peterson and Patricia Mathews, "The Feminist Critique of Art History," Art Bulletin 69 (September 1987): 326-57; Tori! Moi, Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory (New York: Methuen, 1985 and several reprints); and Norma Broude and Mary D. Garrard, eds., The Expanding Discourse: Feminism and Art Hist()ry (New York: HarperCollins, 1992). See also the bibliographies provided ,vithin each of the five parts of this volunw. Aesthetics and Its Traditions 21 l(i. Svetlana Alpers, "Is Art History?" Daedelus 106, no. 3 (Summer 1977). ti. A feminine aesthetic was under discussion in Germany in the early years of the women's 111ovPment. Essays from the late 1970s and early 1980s became available in translation in Gisela I•, kc•r, ed., Feminist Aesthetics (Boston: Beacon, 1985). :18. Broude and Garrard, eds., Feminism and Art History, 1. w. Rozsika Parker and Griselda Pollock, Old Mistresses: W()men, Art, and Ide()logy (New York: l',mthcon, 1981). :10. For an overview of this development in the history of visual arts, see Norma Broude and Mnr y D. Garrard's introduction to The Expanding Discourse: Feminism and Art History. :11. In addition to the special issue on analytic aesthetics mentioned above, two recent issues 111 th1• journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism provide reflection on the state of the discipline. See lh•• hftieth-year conunemorative volume mentioned above, and the volume dedicated to "Philoso- t•hv nnd the Histories of the Arts" (51, no. 3 [Summer 1993)), ed. Donald W. Crawford. Other 111111n*s include Bender and Blocker's Contemporary Philosophy of Art, and the thorough and well- w, 11 h'n Definitwns of Art by Stephen Davies (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991). .1:i. Shusterman, JAAC 46 (1987): 115. It is interesting to note that the first essay in this issue 11 ,, portion of Arnold Isenberg's "Analytical Philosophy and the Study of Art: A Report to the lt111 kc*fcller Foundation" (1950). l'.I. Silvers, " Letting the Sunshine In." . M. Marx Wartofsky, "The Liveliness of Aesthetics," journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 46 11 IIH'/). Nicholas Wolterstorff concurs in "Philosophy of Art After Analysis and Romanticism" in I h•* Name issue. l!i Hoger Scruton, "Modem Philosophy and the Neglect of Aesthetics," Times Literary '•H/l/lll'l11ent (5 June 1987). Ill. Joseph Margolis, "The Eclipse and Recovery of Analytic Aesthetics," in Shusterman, ed., ,t 11,1/yfic Aesthetics. See also "Exorcising the Dreariness of Aesthetics," Journal ()f Aesthetics and -1,1 C 0nticism 51, no. 2 (Spring 1993): 133-40. I'/ Margolis, "Eclipse and Recovery," 35-36. See also his essay in this volume. tH Sec also George Dickie's institutional theory in Art and Aesthetics: An Institutwnal Analysis 11111111 .,: Cornell University Press, 1974), and Joseph Margolis's theory of cultural emergence, Art ,,,,,I /'l,ilosophy (Brighton, Sussex: Harvester, 1980). 111. Arthur C. Danto, "The Artworld, "Journal ()f Phifosophy 61, no. 19 (1964); The Transfigu1,1/1m1 11/ the Commonplace (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981). In addition to. his 1,h1l11•,011hical work, Danto writes a column on art for The Natwn. Some of his collected essays on •• t 11111y be found in Encounters and REf[ectwns (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 1990) and I /tr .\'tali' of the Art (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1987). II) Sc•c, for example, Kendall Walton, Mimesis and Make-Believe (Cambridge: Harvard Univer- nv l'"*Hs, 1990). 11 Fn•nch feminist writers like Helene Cixous, Luce lrigaray, and Julia Kristeva are sometimes , 1111�1elc*1 c-d inaccessible and as a result have been widely ignored by American philosophers. This t t' '"" in spite of works such as Irigaray's analysis of the history of Western philosophy in .,�, 11/11111 de l'autre Femme (Speculum of the Other W()mQn) (Paris: Minuit, 1977). I'' '1hr ii Moi presents a cogent overview of both the Anglo-American and French strands of r, 1111111•,t litt'rary theory and how they relate to "patriarchal aesthetics" in Sexual/Textual Pol itics. , , ul•io I(. K. Ruthven, Feminist Literary Studies: An Introductwn (Cambridge: Cambridge I l11l1T1 NII y l'ress, 1984) and Rita Felski, Beyond Feminist Aesthetics (Cambridge: Harvard Univer11 v I '11•1111, IHHH). t t Joi c•ud and Li,ran have influenced both French feminism and feminist critics such as Jane 1, 1ll11p, ',hoshana Fdmnn, and Gayalt i Spivak. An ov1•rvicw of French thinkers can be found in I I 1h11• M11rk� Ullll lsah<"ih* ch* Co111t1v1011, c*dti., Nt•w 1'i'l'l1rh l•rmi11is111s (Brighton, Sussex: 22 Introduction Harvester, 1980). The influence of these on American theory is discussed in Hester Eisenstein and Alice Jardine, eds., The Future of Difference (Boston: G. K. Hall, 1980). French philosophy and feminism is discussed in Jeffner Allen and Iris Marion Young, eds., The Thinking Muse: Feminism and Modern French Philosophy (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989). 44. A noteworthy exception is Richard Wollheim; see his Painting as an Art (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987). 45. W. K. Wimsatt, Jr., and Monroe C. Beardsley, "The Intentional Fallacy," in The Verbal Icon (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1954), reprinted in Joseph Margolis, Philosophy Looks at the Arts, 3d ed. (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987). 46. This is Toril Moi's recommendation in Sexual/Textual Politics, as influenced by Kristeva and Derrida. 47. See Janet Wolff, Aesthetics and the Sociology of Art, 2d ed. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993). This work invites comparison to Dickie's institutional analysis of art. 48. See Nancy Tuana's comments on the challenge of feminism for philosophy in Woman and the Histqry of Philosophy (New York: Paragon House, 1992). 49. Elizabeth V. Spelman, Inessential Woman: P roblems of Exclusion in Feminist Thought (Boston: Beacon, 1988).