Of Primary Features in Aesthetics: A Critical Assessment of Generalism and a Limited Defence of Particularism

British Journal of Aesthetics 59 (1):35-49 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Contemporary analytic aesthetics has seen a heated debate about whether there are general critical principles that determine the merits/demerits of an artwork. The so-called generalists say ‘yes’, whereas the so-called particularists say ‘no’. On the particularists’ view, a feature that is a merit in one artwork might well turn out to be a defect in another, so critical principles purporting to define merits and defects are pretty much in vain. Against this, the generalists argue that while some features change their status in the way suggested by the particularists not all features do; there are still some features that remain merits or defects across different contexts; these are what the generalists call ‘primary features’. If so, the generalists maintain that there are still general critical principles generated by these primary features. In this article, I provide a limited defence of particularism by critically assessing three arguments for the existence of such primary features. I first argue that Beardsley’s invariable and explanatory conception of primary features is too strong, such that there is no compelling reason for us to believe in their existence. I then argue that Sibley’s prima facie conception and Dickie’s isolation conception of primary features are both too weak—in other words, even if primary features of these kinds exist, they do not generate the sort of critical principles that the particularists reject. Finally, I argue that Connolly and Haydar’s recent attempt to revive the Beardsleyan conception fails. As a result, I contend that there is reason to believe that particularism remains as a live option.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Particularism and default valency.Simon Kirchin - 2007 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 4 (1):16-32.
Rules and Exceptions.Johan Brannmark - 1999 - Theoria 65 (2-3):127-143.
Aesthetic principles.Oliver Conolly & Bashshar Haydar - 2003 - British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (2):114-125.
Particularism, Generalism and the Counting Argument.Simon Kirchin - 2003 - European Journal of Philosophy 11 (1):54-71.
John Dewey and the Possibility of Particularist Moral Education.Nate Jackson - 2016 - Southwest Philosophy Review 32 (1):215-224.
Generalism without foundations.Manuel Hernández-Iglesias - 2006 - Acta Analytica 21 (2):71-86.
The Riddle of aesthetic principles.Vojko Strahovnik - 2004 - Acta Analytica 19 (33):189-208.
Usable moral principles.Pekka Väyrynen - 2008 - In Vojko Strahovnik, Matjaz Potrc & Mark Norris Lance (eds.), Challenging Moral Particularism. Routledge. pp. 75-106.


Added to PP

50 (#311,236)

6 months
18 (#135,061)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Peter Shiu-Hwa Tsu
National Chung Cheng University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Aesthetic Concepts.Frank Sibley - 1959 - Philosophical Review 68 (4):421-450.
On an apparent truism in aesthetics.Paisley Nathan Livingston - 2003 - British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (3):260-278.
Defining Intrinsic Value.Roderick Chisholm - 1980 - Analysis 41 (2):99 - 100.
General criteria and reasons in aesthetics.Frank Sibley - 1983 - In Monroe C. Beardsley & John Fisher (eds.), Essays on Aesthetics: Perspectives on the Work of Monroe C. Beardsley. Temple University Press. pp. 3--20.

View all 11 references / Add more references