Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Arbitrariness of Aesthetic Judgment

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The Journal of Value Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. For a discussion of aesthetic realism, anti-realism, and its variants, see Elisabeth Schellekens, ‘Aesthetic Properties’ in Anna Christina Ribeiro and Thomas Adajian (eds), The Continuum Companion to Aesthetics (London: Continuum, Schellekens 2012), 84–97. The statement that most philosophers accept something like aesthetic realism appears in the following works: Aaron Meskin, Mark Phelan, Margaret Moore, and Matthew Kieran, ‘Mere Exposure to Bad Art,’ British Journal of Aesthetics 53 (2013), 139–164, at 139; Aaron Meskin, Jon Robson, Anna Ichino, Kris Goffin, and Annelies Monsere, ‘Philosophical Aesthetics and Cognitive Science’, WIREs Cogn Sci 9 (2018), 1–15 at 3; and Florian Cova, Amanda Garcia, and Shen-yi Liao, ‘Experimental Philosophy of Aesthetics’, Philosophy Compass 10/11 (2015), 927–939, at 931. David Bourget and David Chalmers, ‘What Do Philosophers Believe?’ Philosophical Studies 170, 465–500, have empirical data that supports the claim that philosophers are realists about aesthetic value.

  2. See for example Matthew Kieran, ‘The Vice of Snobbery: Aesthetic Knowledge, Justification, and Virtue in Art Appreciation’, Philosophical Quarterly 60 (2010), 243–263; Meskin et al., ‘Mere Exposure to Bad Art’, 139.

  3. For a brief overview, see Meskin et al., ‘Philosophical Aesthetics and Cognitive Science’, and Cova et al., ‘Experimental Philosophy of Aesthetics’. See also Dominic McIver Lopes, ‘Feckless Reasons’, in Greg Currie, Matthew Kieran, Aaron Meskin, and Jon Robson (eds), Aesthetics and the Sciences of the Mind (Oxford: OUP, 2014) 22–37. Lopes is skeptical of the providing of reasons to justify an aesthetic judgment. He is less skeptical of the merit of the judgments themselves. His position will be discussed further subsequently.

  4. Meskin et al., ‘Mere Exposure to Bad Art’; Bence Nanay, ‘Perceptual Learning, the Mere Exposure Effect and Aesthetic Anti-Realism’, Leonardo 50 (2017), 58–63. Lopes pushes back against Cutting’s argument as well, although he is sympathetic to empirical findings more generally. See ‘Feckless Reasons’ pg. 27.

  5. James Cutting, ‘Gustave Caillebotte, French Impressionism, and Mere Exposure’, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 10 (2003), 319–343.

  6. Robert Zajonc, ‘Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure’, Journal of Psychology and Social Psychology 9 (1968), 1–27; ‘Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inference’, American Psychologist 35 (1980), 151–175.

  7. Cutting, ‘Gustave Caillebotte, French Impressionism, and Mere Exposure’, 321. Cutting confirms that he is not advocating for anti-realism in a private correspondence with Meskin et al., ‘Mere Exposure to Bad Art’. However, Meskin et al. interpret his results as putting pressure on the idea that quality plays any role at all in canon formation, as it calls into question the role that judgments of quality play in general canon formation.

  8. Lopes, ‘Feckless Reason’.

  9. Ibid, 35.

  10. Ibid.

  11. For example, towards the end of his article, Lopes states that subjects ‘are in some sense aware of the features of stimuli that speak in favour of one choice over another. However, this awareness is not the same as the kind of state that is either articulated verbally in making a report or mentally in preparation to making a report,’ ‘Feckless Reason’, 34.

  12. Zajonc, ‘Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure’; ‘Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inference’.

  13. Zajonc, ‘Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inference’.

  14. See Zajonc ‘Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inference’ for a review of the confirmatory studies conducted up to that point in time; see also Robert Bornstein, ‘Exposure and Affect: Overview and Meta-analysis of Research, 1968–1987’, Psychological Bulletin 106 (1989), 265–289.

  15. Cutting, ‘Gustave Caillebotte, French Impressionism, and Mere Exposure’, 321.

  16. Ibid., 321.

  17. Ibid, 324.

  18. One of Cutting’s research aims is to determine whether paintings from the Caillebotte collection of impressionist works somehow formed a ‘cream of the crop’ of impressionistic work, but that goal is not relevant to understanding this study, and in fact it ends up taking a backseat to his inquiry into the effects of mere exposure.

  19. Ibid., 328–329.

  20. Ibid., 331.

  21. Ibid., 332.

  22. Ibid., 335.

  23. Meskin et al., ‘Mere Exposure to Bad Art’, 142. Meskin et al. seem to use “artistic value” and “aesthetic value” interchangeably. For example, they later say “philosophers standardly assume that, other things being equal, aesthetic judgment latches on to a work’s aesthetically appreciable qualities” (142).

  24. Ibid., 145.

  25. Ibid.

  26. Ibid, 146

  27. On the Likert scale used, a rating of 10 indicates strong agreement with the statement ‘I like it’ and a rating of ‘1’ indicates strong disagreement. Ibid, 147.

  28. Ibid, 149

  29. Ibid, 150

  30. Ibid, 151; Meskin et al. blame their lack of results on the relatively small sample size that they made use of. This, if anything, suggests a flawed experimental design. Cutting made use of over 200 students who were more reliably exposed to the art objects. Meskin et al. would have been wise to follow suit.

  31. Ibid, 151–152

  32. Ibid, 154

  33. Ibid

  34. See footnote 12 on the robustness of the mere exposure effect.

  35. Ibid., 157.

  36. Nanay, ‘Perceptual Learning, the Mere Exposure Effect and Aesthetic Anti-Realism’.

  37. See Jason Farago, ‘It’s time to take down the Mona Lisa’, New York Times (published online November 6, 2019) <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/arts/design/mona-lisa-louvre-overcrowding.html> for evidence that it is the most visited painting in the world. That the Mona Lisa is the most reproduced painting in the world is hard to prove, but seems highly probable. A quick Google search produces a great many suspect rankings, but the Mona Lisa is invariably listed in the top 5 of many such rankings.

  38. When Googling ‘the Mona Lisa’, Google tells you that people who search for the Mona Lisa also typically search for: Girl with a Pearl Earring, The Last Supper, Birth of Venus, Starry Night, and the Pietà (among others). This is quite a hodgepodge of works; but they do have one thing in common, they are all quite famous.

  39. David Edelstein, “All Ten Quentin Tarantino Films Ranked,” Vulture (published online July 25, 2019) <https://www.vulture.com/2015/08/every-quentin-tarantino-movie-ranked.html>.

  40. Lily Lin, JoAndrea Hoegg, and Karl Aquino, ‘When Beauty Backfires: The Effects of Server Attractiveness on Consumer Taste Perceptions’, Journal of Retailing 94 (2018), 296–311, at 297.

  41. That a food item is of very poor quality may well be the kind of coarse-grained judgment referred to above that cannot be overcome by expectation bias.

  42. Ibid., 303. To conduct the study, the same female server altered her make-up, hair, and clothing for the attractive/unattractive condition (Lin et al., 302).

  43. Ibid., 298.

  44. Wine experts attempt to make extremely fine-grained distinctions as evidenced by the point system commonly used in rating wines. See for example the system used by Wine Spectator: https://www.winespectator.com/articles/scoring-scale.

  45. See Douglas Burnham & Ole Skilleås, ‘You’ll Never Drink Alone: Wine Tasting and Aesthetic Practice’, in F. Allhoff (ed), Wine and Philosophy: A Symposium on Thinking and Drinking (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008), 157–171; The Aesthetics of Wine (Malden, MA: Wiley, 2012); ‘Categories and Appreciation—A reply to Sackris’, Journal of Value Inquiry 48 (2014), 551–557; Jonathan Cohen, ‘In the Kingdom of the Blind: On the Limitations of Blind Tasting’, The World of Fine Wine 41 (2013), 74–81; Barry Smith, ‘The Objectivity of Tastes and Tasting’, in Barry Smith (ed), Questions of Taste: The Philosophy of Wine (OUP, 2007), 41–78; Cain Todd, The Philosophy of Wine: A Case of Truth, Beauty and Intoxication (Montreal: Queen’s University Press, 2011). For a dissenting view. see David Sackris, ‘Category Independent Aesthetic Experience: The Case of Wine’, Journal of Value Inquiry 47 (2013), 111–120; ‘What Jancis Robinson didn’t know may have helped her’, Erkenntnis 84 (2018), 805–822.

  46. Gil Morrot, Frédéric Brochet and Denis Dubourdieu, ‘The Colors of Odors’, Brain and Language 79 (2001), 309–320, at 312–313.

  47. Ibid., 316.

  48. See Sackris ‘Category Independent Aesthetic Experience: The Case of Wine’; ‘What Jancis Robinson didn’t know may have helped her’, and Burnham and Skilleås The Aesthetics of Wine for an extended discussion of these studies on wine tasting and their significance for aesthetic evaluations.

  49. Frédéric Brochet, ‘Chemical Object Representation in the Field of Consciousness, Grand Prix of the Academie Amorin (2001) <http://static.stevereads.com/papers_to_read/brochet_wine_experiment.pdf> 1/3/2020.

  50. Ibid., 10. Describing a wine as containing ‘faults’ is a significant ding on a wine. A fault is considered to be defects such as cork taint, or the wine having been over exposed to air and having begun to turn to vinegar.

  51. Brian Wansink, Collin Payne, and Jill North, ‘Fine as North Dakota Wine: Sensory Expectations and the Intake of Companion Foods’, Psychology and Behavior 90 (2007), 712–716. North Dakota is decidedly not known for making wine in the United States. If a person knows anything at all about wine in the United States, it is that California is the primary wine producing state within the country.

  52. Ibid., 713.

  53. Matthew Salganik, Peter Dodds, Duncan Watts, ‘Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market’, Science 311 (2006), 854–856, at 854.

  54. Ibid., 855.

  55. This study was repeated with individuals from a range of demographic backgrounds and a similar result was obtained. The results of this study are not a function of it being performed on teenaged individuals. See Matthew Salganik and Duncan J. Watts, “Web-Based Experiments for the Study of Collective Social Dynamics in Cultural Markets, Topics in Cognitive Science 1 (2009), 439–468.

  56. Ibid.

  57. Farago, ‘It’s time to take down the Mona Lisa’.

  58. Sarah Young, ‘Mona Lisa Voted the World’s “Most Disappointing” Tourist Attraction by Britons’, Independent (Published online April 2019) <https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mona-lisa-paris-louvre-travel-tourist-attraction-easyjet-instagram-a8887161.html> accessed 3 January 2020.

  59. Steven Cuellar, ‘The “Sideways” Effect: A Test for Changes in the Demand for Merlot and Pinot Noir Wines, Wines and Vines (published online October 2004) <https://winesvinesanalytics.com/features/article/61265/The-Sideways-Effect> accessed 3 January 2020.

  60. For evidence that an item gains value in the eyes of an individual simply as a result of being chosen by that individual, see J.W. Brehm, ‘Postdecision Changes in the Desirability of Alternatives’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 52 (1956), 384–389; L.C. Egan, L.R. Santos, and P. Bloom, ‘The Origins of Cognitive Dissonance: Evidence from Children and Monkeys’, Psychological Science 18 (2007), 978–983.

  61. See Cova (2015) and Meskin et al. (2018),

  62. Meskin et al., ‘Philosophical aesthetics and cognitive science’.

  63. Jancis Robinson, a famous wine critic, admits to falling victim to this old ‘trick’; see Confessions of a wine lover (Middlesex, UK: Penguin, 1997). Such a tactic is also discussed in Burnham and Skilleås’ The Aesthetics of Wine.

  64. Kevin Melchionne, ‘On the Old Saw “I Know Nothing About Art but I know What I Like’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 68 (2010) assumes that film producers must have some reason for funding one film over another (pg. 132).

  65. John Lawless, The Interview: Nigel Newton: Is There Life after Harry Potter? You Bet Your Hogwarts There Is. Independent (published online July 3, 2005) <https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/nigel-newton-is-there-life-after-harry-you-can-bet-your-hogwarts-there-is-296317.html>.

  66. Bill Carter, Desperate Networks (New York: Doubleday, 2006).

  67. Ray Coleman, Brian Epstein: The Man who made the Beatles (New York: McGraw Hill, 1989).

  68. ‘Web-Based Experiments’, 442.

  69. Hope Werness, ‘Han van Meegeren Fecit’, in Denis Dutton (ed), The Forger’s Art: Forgery and the Philosophy of Art (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983) 1–57 at 31.

  70. See Werness, ‘Han van Meegeren Fecit’, 45; and Alfred Lessing, ‘What is Wrong with a Forgery?’, in Denis Dutton (ed), The Forger’s Art: Forgery and the Philosophy of Art (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983) 58–76, at 60.

  71. Werness, ‘Han van Meegeren Fecit’, 29. Robson, ‘Aesthetic Testimony and the Test of Time’, discusses the van Meegeran forgery as an instance of an echo chamber in the artworld, and it may well be: because some famous art critics thought it was a Vermeer, other critics fell in line with the beliefs of the opinion leaders. However, I think it is also an instance of expectations driving perceptions: if it is a Vermeer, it has to be good. If it’s a van Meegeren, who no one has ever heard of, it cannot possibly be all that good. My thanks to Robson for bringing this example to my attention.

  72. Werness, ‘Han van Meegeren Fecit’, 10–11.

  73. Ibid., 31.

  74. See for example Patricia Herzog, ‘Akrasia and Aesthetic Judgment’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 58 (2007) 37–49; Anita Silvers, ‘Aesthetic “akrasia”: Disliking good art’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 31 (1972), 227–234.

  75. ‘Philosophical aesthetics and cognitive science’, 4.

  76. ‘Perceptual Learning, the Mere Exposure Effect and Aesthetic Anti-Realism’, 59.

  77. Dominic McIver Lopes, Being for Beauty: Aesthetic Agency and Value (OUP, 2018).

  78. See for example Kendall Walton, ‘Categories of art’, The Philosophical Review 79 (1970), 334–367.

  79. Meskin et al., ‘Philosophical Aesthetics and Cognitive Science’, 3.

References

  • Bourget, David, and David Chalmers. 2014. What do philosophers believe? Philosophical Studies 170: 465–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, Robert. 1989. Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychological Bulletin 106: 265–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brehm, J.W. 1956. Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 52: 384–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brochet, Frederic. 2001. Chemical object representation in the field of consciousness. Grand Prix of the Academie Amorin. http://www.francescoannibali.it/writable/uploadfile/chimica%20della%20degustazione.pdf. Accessed 13 June 2016.

  • Burnham, Douglas, and Ole Skilleås. 2008. You’ll never drink alone: Wine tasting and aesthetic practice. In Wine and philosophy: A symposium on thinking and drinking, ed. F. Allhoff, 157–171. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, Douglas, and Ole Skilleås. 2012. The aesthetics of wine. Malden, MA: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, D., and O. Skilleås. 2014. Categories and appreciation—A reply to Sackris. Journal of Value Inquiry 48: 551–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, Bill. 2006. Desperate Networks. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Jonathan. 2013. In the Kingdom of the Blind: On the limitations of blind tasting. The World of Fine Wine 41: 74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, Ray. 1989. Brian Epstein: The Man who made the Beatles. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cova, Florian, Amanda Garcia, and Shen-yi Liao. 2015. Experimental philosophy of aesthetics. Philosophy Compass 10 (11): 927–939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuellar, Steven. 2009. The ‘Sideways’ effect: A test for changes in the demand for Merlot and Pinot Noir wines. Wines and Vines. https://winesvinesanalytics.com/features/article/61265/The-Sideways-Effect. Accessed 15 February 2020.

  • Cutting, James. 2003. Gustave Caillebotte, French impressionism, and mere exposure. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 10: 319–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelstein, David. 2019. All ten Quentin Tarantino films ranked. Vulture (published online July 25, 2019). https://www.vulture.com/2015/08/every-quentin-tarantino-movie-ranked.html.

  • Egan, L.C., L.R. Santos, and P. Bloom. 2007. The origins of cognitive dissonance: Evidence from children and monkeys. Psychological Science 18: 978–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02012.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farago, Jason. 2019. It’s time to take down the Mona Lisa. New York Times, published on November 6. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/06/arts/design/mona-lisa-louvre-overcrowding.html

  • Halliday, James, and Huon Hooke. 2015. Penfolds. In Oxford Companion to Wine, ed. Jancis Robinson and Julia Harding, 541–542. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, Patricia. 2007. Akrasia and Aesthetic Judgment. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 58: 37–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kieran, Matthew. 2010. The vice of snobbery: Aesthetic knowledge, justification, and virtue in art appreciation. Philosophical Quarterly 60: 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawless, John. 2005. The Interview: Nigel Newton: Is There Life after Harry Potter? You Bet Your Hogwarts There Is. Independent (published online July 3, 2005). Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/nigel-newton-is-there-life-after-harry-you-can-bet-your-hogwarts-there-is-296317.html.

  • Lessing, Alfred. 1983. What is wrong with a forgery? In The Forger’s Art: Forgery and the Philosophy of Art, ed. Denis Dutton, 58–76. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lily, Lin, JoAndrea Hoegg, and Karl Aquino. 2018. When beauty backfires: The effects of server attractiveness on Consumer taste perceptions. Journal of Retailing 94: 296–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melchionne, Kevin. 2010. On the Old Saw ‘I Know Nothing about Art But I Know What I Like’. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 68: 131–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meskin, Aaron, Mark Phelan, Margaret Moore, and Matthew Kieran. 2013. Mere exposure to bad art. British Journal of Aesthetics 53: 139–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meskin, Aaron, Jon Robson, Anna Ichino, Kris Goffin, and Annelies Monsere. 2018. Philosophical aesthetics and cognitive science. WIREs Cogn Sci 9: 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrot, Gil, Frederic Brochet, and Denis Dubourdieu. 2001. The colors of odours. Brain and Language 79: 309–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, Dominic McIver. 2014. Feckless Reasons. In Aesthetics and the Sciences of the Mind, ed. Greg Currie, Matthew Kieran, Aaron Meskin, and Jon Robson, 22–37. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, Dominic McIver. 2018. Being for Beauty: Aesthetic Agency and Value. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nanay, Bence. 2017. Perceptual learning, the mere exposure effect and aesthetic anti-realism. Leonardo 50: 58–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, George and Bloom, Paul. 2011. Art and authenticity: The importance of originals in judgments of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026035

  • Newman, George, and Paul Bloom. 2014. Physical contact influences how much people pay at celebrity auctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 3705–3708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perl, Jed. 2011. Bullshit heaven, review of Alexis L Boylan (ed), Thomas Kinkade: The Artist in the Mall. New Republic. https://newrepublic.com/article/91615/thomas-kinkade

  • Robinson, Jancis. 1997. Confessions of a wine lover. Middlesex, UK: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robson, Jon. 2014. A social epistemology of aesthetics: belief polarization, echo chambers, and aesthetic judgment. Synthese 191: 2513–2528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robson, Jon. 2018. Aesthetic testimony and the test of time. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 96: 729–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sackris, David. 2013. Category independent aesthetic experience: The case of wine. Journal of Value Inquiry 47: 111–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sackris, David. 2018. What Jancis Robinson didn’t know may have helped her. Erkenntnis 84: 805–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salganik, Matthew, Peter Sheridan Dodds, and Duncan J. Watts. 2006. Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artifical cultural market. Science 311: 854–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salganik, Matthew, and Duncan J. Watts. 2009. Web-Based Experiments for the Study of Collective Social Dynamics in Cultural Markets. Topics in Cognitive Science 1: 439–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellekens, Elisabeth. 2012. Aesthetic properties. In Anna Christina Ribeiro and Thomas Adajian (Eds.), The Continuum Companion to Aesthetics (pp. 84-97). London: Continuum Companions.

  • Silvers, Anita. 1972. Aesthetic ‘akrasia’: Disliking good art. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 31: 227–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Barry. 2007. The objectivity of tastes and tasting. In Questions of taste: The philosophy of wine, ed. B. Smith, 41–78. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabor, George. 2006. The Judgment of Paris. New York: Scribner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Todd, Cain. 2011. The philosophy of wine: A case of truth, beauty and intoxication. Montreal: Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, Kendall. 1970. Categories of art. The Philosophical Review 79: 334–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wansink, Brian, Collin R. Payne, and Jill North. Fine as North Dakota wine: Sensory expectations and the intake of companion foods. Psychology and Behavior, 90, 712-716.

  • Werness, Hope. 1983. Han van Meegeren fecit. In The Forger’s Art: Forgery and the Philosophy of Art, ed. Denis Dutton, 1–57. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, Sarah. 4/26/2019. Mona Lisa voted the world’s ‘most disappointing’ tourist attraction by Britons. Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/mona-lisa-paris-louvre-travel-tourist-attraction-easyjet-instagram-a8887161.html. Accessed 20 February 2020.

  • Zajonc, Robert. 1968. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Psychology and Social Psychology 9: 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, Robert. 1980. Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inference. American Psychologist 35: 151–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arapahoe Community College, 5900 S Santa Fe Drive, Littleton, CO, 80120, USA

    David Sackris

Authors
  1. David Sackris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Sackris.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sackris, D. The Arbitrariness of Aesthetic Judgment. J Value Inquiry 55, 625–646 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-020-09759-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-020-09759-w

Search

Navigation