Abstract

The stated intent of this book is to use the art of today as an introduction to philosophy and to describe the aesthetic experience. The author also says he wants to take a stand which he solidly does. The issues dealt with are the standard meat of aesthetic discussions and complexities: a comparison of ordinary and aesthetic vision, the art-object, qualities of the aesthetic experience, form, content, process, expression, tragedy, comedy, beauty, and the sublime. Anderson's arguments are based on three main assumptions. Art is separate from life and, since it is external to man, he must struggle to cross into the realm of art, often wading through intentionally ambiguous elements to get to the content of the art-work. A successful art-object revives in the viewer the process of perception and articulation learned as a child. The crux of the aesthetic experience is the disclosure of content to the spectator. Based on this last assumption, the author's standard for judging artists is that some artists are more profound than others because their participation in this disclosure of content is deeper. Therefore, the better artist will try to relate both his activities and his nature to this all-important process. Positive aspects of this book are refreshingly unstereotyped views on the role of art critics and art history ; a recognition that aesthetic response is intuitive and the aesthetic experience is transient; and the raising of some provocative questions regarding the importance of the artist's judgment in determining the value of his own work. Unfortunately, this last point is not discussed after its initial mention. On the negative side, despite Anderson's stated intentions, all specific examples of art-works are drawn from non-contemporary sources. Also, idealism lends itself to a rigid aesthetic hermeneutics which is contrary to the majority of art movements in this century. Indeed, one of the outstanding characteristics of the contemporary arts has been the steady destruction of canons and boundaries. Anderson presents these same canons as relevant and absolute. His emphasis on the disclosure of content and content itself is particularly open to question in the light of conscious attempts by artists to eliminate content as a contentable element.. Some justification for endorsing interpretive aesthetics is needed and is not given. Anderson's greatest success is that he has, indeed, most clearly taken a stand.--B. T.