References

• Barker, John, 2009, “Mathematical Beauty”, Sztuka i Filozofia, 35: 65–74.

  A powerful defence of the claim that mathematical and logical proofs have aesthetic properties.

  (Scholar)
• Beardsley, Monroe C., 1958, Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

  An extraordinary work, impressive in scope, deploying the notion of the aesthetic. The target of Dickie’s critique.

  (Scholar)
• –––, 1982, The Aesthetic Point of View: Selected Essays, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

  A selection of Beardsley’s essays.

  (Scholar)
• Blackburn, Simon, 1998, Ruling Passions: A Theory of Practical Reasoning, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  A defense of expressivism, a modern version of Hume’s sentimentalism.

  (Scholar)
• Budd, Malcolm, 2001, “The Pure Judgement of Taste as an Aesthetic Reflective Judgement”, British Journal of Aesthetics, 41(3): 247–260. doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/41.3.247

  Refreshingly less deferential than many writings on Kant.

  (Scholar)
• Burke, Edmund, 1757 [1998], A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, London: R. and J. Dodsley. Reprinted Harmonsworth: Penguin, 1998.

  A classic, although it is sometimes eccentric.

  (Scholar)
• Burton, Stephan L., 1992, “‘Thick’ Concepts Revised”, Analysis, 52(1): 28–32. doi:10.1093/analys/52.1.28

  An insightful account of substantive aesthetic descriptions, and also of so-called “thick moral concepts”.

  (Scholar)
• Cohen, Ted, 1973, “ Aesthetic/Non-Aesthetic and the Concept of Taste: A Critique of Sibley’s Position”, Theoria, 39(1–3): 113–152. doi:10.1111/j.1755-2567.1973.tb00633.x

  Argues that Sibley’s account of what makes concepts aesthetic will not do.

  (Scholar)
• Cova, Florian and Nicholas Pain, 2012, “Can Folk Aesthetics Ground Aesthetic Realism?”, Monist, 95(2): 241–263. doi:10.5840/monist201295214

  Argues that folk aesthetic is not normativist.

  (Scholar)
• Dickie, George, 1965, “Beardsley’s Phantom Aesthetic Experience”, Journal of Philosophy, 62(5): 129–136. doi:10.2307/2023490

  Argues that Beardsley’s account of aesthetic experience will not do.

  (Scholar)
• Davidson, Donald, 1970 [1980], “Mental Events”, in Experience and Theory, Lawrence Foster and J. W. Swanson (eds), Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press and Duckworth. Reprinted in Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980, ch. 11. doi:10.1093/0199246270.003.0011

  A classic paper in the philosophy of mind arguing for a version of materialism without strict laws relating the mental and the physical.

  (Scholar)
• Fine, Kit, 1994, “Essence and Modality: The Second Philosophical Perspectives Lecture”, Philosophical Perspectives, 8: 1–16. doi:10.2307/2214160

  Distinguishes essence from modality; of general philosophical importance.

  (Scholar)
• Gombrich, Ernst H., 1959, Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation, London: Phaiden.

  Argues for anti-formalism by appeal to indiscernibles.

  (Scholar)
• Gorodeisky, Keren and Eric Marcus, 2018, “Aesthetic Rationality”, The Journal of Philosophy, 115(3): 113–140. (Scholar)
• –––, 2022, “Aesthetic Knowledge”, Philosophical Studies, 179: 2507–2535. (Scholar)
• Hanslick, Eduard, 1986, On the Musically Beautiful, transl. Geoffrey Payzant, Indianapolis: Hackett.

  Classic work of musical aesthetics, first published in 1854. Written with panache and wit.

  (Scholar)
• Hanslick, Eduard, 1950, Hanslick’s Music Criticism, translated and edited by Henry Pleasants, London: Dover.

  Critical reviews of Bach and Wagner and others. You almost feel sorry for Wagner reading some of these.

  (Scholar)
• Hughes, Brian, 2016, Rethinking Psychology: Good Science, Bad Science, Pseudo-Science, London: Macmillan.

  Thorough critique of much questionnaire psychology, posing fundamental challenges for so-called “experimental philosophy”.

  (Scholar)
• Hume, David, 1757 [1985], “Of the Standard of Taste”, page reference is to reprint in Essays: Moral, Political and Literary, Eugene Miller (ed.), Indianapolis, IN: Liberty, 1985.

  Hume’s classic attempt to reconcile sentimentalism with normativity.

  (Scholar)
• Kant, Immanuel, 1790 [2000], Critique of the Power of Judgment (Kritik der Urteilskraft), page reference to the 2000 translation by Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Includes the idea that judgments of beauty and ugliness are subjectively universal, and much else.

  (Scholar)
• Kivy, Peter, 1975, “What Makes ‘Aesthetic’ Terms Aesthetic?”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 36(2): 197–211.

  Argues that Sibley’s unitary notion of the aesthetic has no basis. Kivy also makes a positive suggestion.

  (Scholar)
• –––, 1991, “Science and Aesthetic Appreciation”, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 16(1): 180–195. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4975.1991.tb00238.x

  Sympathetic to mathematical beauty.

  (Scholar)
• Korsgaard, Christine M., 1996, The Sources of Normativity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511554476

  Defends a Kantian view of agency and includes a powerful critique of sentimentalist accounts.

  (Scholar)
• –––, 2009, Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity, Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199552795.001.0001

  Deploys the idea that we aim at a kind of unity in our actions.

  (Scholar)
• Levinson, Jerrold, 2001, “Aesthetic Properties, Evaluative Force, and Differences of Sensibility”, in Aesthetic Concepts: Essays After Sibley, Emily Brady and Jerrold Levinson (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 61–80. Reprinted in Jerrold Levinson, Contemplating Art: Essays in Aesthetics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015: 315–335. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199206179.003.0020

  Argues for some neutral substantive aesthetic properties.

  (Scholar)
• –––, 2012, “Musical Beauty”, Teorema, 31(3): 127–135. Reprinted in Jerrold Levinson, Musical Concerns: Essays in Philosophy of Music, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015: 58–66. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669660.003.0006

  A nuanced examination of one notion of beauty.

  (Scholar)
• Lord, Errol, 2019, “The Nature of Perceptual Expertise and the Rationality of Criticism”, Ergo, 6(29). doi:10.3998/ergo.12405314.0006.029 (Scholar)
• McClary, Susan, 1991: Feminine Endings: Music, Gender, and Sexuality. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  A classic of so-called ‘New Musicology’.

  (Scholar)
• Mitrović, Branko, 2013, Visuality for Architects: Architectural Creativity and Modern Theories of Perception and Imagination, Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press.

  Puts the visual dimension back into architecture.

  (Scholar)
• –––, 2018, “Visuality and Aesthetic Formalism”, British Journal of Aesthetics, 58(2): 147–163. doi:10.1093/aesthj/ayy001

  Explores and defends the psychological basis of visual formalism.

  (Scholar)
• Mothersill, Mary, 1984, Beauty Restored, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  An exploration of the notion of beauty, with some historical coverage.

  (Scholar)
• Nguyen, C Thi, 2020, “Autonomy and Aesthetic Engagement”, Mind, 129(516): 1127–1156. (Scholar)
• Nietzsche, Friedrich, 1887 [1998], On the Genealogy of Morals (Zur Genealogie der Moral: Eine Streitschrift), Maudemarie Clarke and Alan J. Swensen (trans.), Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1998.

  Book 3, sections 1–6. An interesting, and not at all uncareful, critique of Kant’s aesthetics. In this passage he is not concerned with Schopenhauer.

  (Scholar)
• Scruton, Roger, 1974, Art and Imagination: A Study in the Philosophy of Mind, London: Methuen.

  A wide-ranging book, in which the role of imagination is highlighted.

  (Scholar)
• –––, 1979, The Aesthetics of Architecture, London: Methuen.

  A superb discussion of architecture, but also contains much material relevant to more central topics in aesthetics.

  (Scholar)
• Schellekens, Elisabeth 2007 [2017], “Conceptual Art”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/conceptual-art/>

  A sympathetic interpretation of some of the claims of conceptual artists about their work.

  (Scholar)
• Sibley, Frank, 1959, “Aesthetic Concepts”, Philosophical Review, 68(4): 421–450; reprinted in Sibley 2001: 1–23. 10.2307/2182490 & doi:10.1093/0198238991.003.0001

  Sibley’s classic paper, which makes the notion of the aesthetic central. The target of Cohen and Kivy’s critiques.

  (Scholar)
• –––, 1965, “Aesthetic and Nonaesthetic”, Philosophical Review, 74(2): 135–159; reprinted in Sibley 2001: 33–51. doi:10.2307/2183262 & doi:10.1093/0198238991.003.0003

  Explores the dependence of aesthetic features on nonaesthetic features. This paper was originally the second part of Sibley’s paper “Aesthetic Concepts”.

  (Scholar)
• –––, 2001, Approach to Aesthetics, John Benson, Betty Redfern, and Jeremy Roxbee Cox (eds.), Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198238991.001.0001 (Scholar)
• Taruskin, Richard, 1989 [1995], “Resisting the Ninth”, Nineteenth-Century Music, 12(3): 241–256; reprinted in his Text and Act: Essays on Music and Performance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995: 235–261. doi:10.2307/746505

  Agrees with Wagner about the sublime and the beautiful in Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony.

  (Scholar)
• –––, 2019, “Essence or Context”, in Essence and Context, Rima Povilioniene, Rūta Stanevičiūtė, and Nick Zangwill (eds.), New York: Springer-Palgrave-Macmillan. Reprinted in Richard Taruskin, Cursed Questions: On Music and Its Social Practices, University of California Press, 2020.

  Argues against a Hanslickean view and argues for a Wagnerian conception of the sublime in Beethoven.

  (Scholar)
• Wagner, Richard 1870 [2014], Beethoven, translated by Roger Allen, Boydell Press. Originally published Leipzig: Verlag von E. W. Fritzsche.

  Makes claims about the sublime in Beethoven.

  (Scholar)
• Walton, Kendall, 1970, “Categories of Art”, Philosophical Review, 79: 334–367.

  Influential series of anti-formalist arguments.

  (Scholar)
• Williams, Jessica J., 2021, “Kant on Aesthetic Attention”, British Journal of Aesthetics 61. No. 4, pp. 421–435.

  A vigorous recent investigation of Kant’s views.

  (Scholar)
• Zangwill, Nick, 1995 [2001], “The Beautiful, the Dainty and the Dumpy”, British Journal of Aesthetics, 35(4): 317–329; reprinted slightly modified in Zangwill 2001: 9–23. doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/35.4.317

  Includes a statement and defense of the centrality of beauty and ugliness among other aesthetic concepts.

  (Scholar)
• –––, 1999 [2001], “Feasible Aesthetic Formalism”, Noûs, 33(4): 610–629; reprinted in Zangwill 2001: 55–81. doi:10.1111/0029-4624.00196

  Argues for a “moderate” formalist view that allows that things can be “dependently beautiful”, in Kant’s sense.

  (Scholar)
• –––, 2001, The Metaphysics of Beauty, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 2013, “Nietzsche on Kant on Beauty and Disinterest”, History of Philosophy Quarterly, 30(1): 75–91. [Zangwill 2013 available online]

  Sympathetically interprets and defends Nietzsche’s criticism of Kant on disinterest.

  (Scholar)
• –––, 2019, “Folk Aesthetics and Normativity: A Critique of Experimental Aesthetics”, in Advances in Experimental Philosophy of Aesthetics, Florian Cova and Sébastien Réhault (eds), London: Bloomsbury.

  Criticizes ‘experimental philosophy’, in general, and in particular the experimental denial that ordinary aesthetic judgments claim correctness.

  (Scholar)
• Zemach, Eddy, 1995, Real Beauty, University Park: Penn State Press.

  Argues for an extreme realist view.

  (Scholar)
• Zuckert, Rachel, 2007, Kant on Beauty and Biology: An Interpretation of the Critique of Judgment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511487323

  An insightful scholarly and philosophical investigation.

  (Scholar)

Further Reading

• Bender, John W., 1995, “General but Defeasible Reasons in Aesthetic Evaluation: The Particularist/Generalist Dispute”, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 53(4): 379–392. doi:10.2307/430973 (Scholar)
• Dickie, George, 1988, Evaluating Art, Philadelphia: Temple University Press. (Scholar)
• Goldman, Alan, 1995, Aesthetic Value, Boulder, CO: Westview. (Scholar)
• Greenberg, Clement, 1999, Homemade Esthetics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Scholar)
• Hopkins, Robert, 2011, “How to Be a Pessimist about Aesthetic Testimony”,, Journal of Philosophy, 108(3): 138–157. doi:10.5840/jphil201110838 (Scholar)
• Kivy, Peter, 1968, “Aesthetic Aspects and Aesthetic Qualities”, Journal of Philosophy, 65(4): 85–93. doi:10.2307/2024481 (Scholar)
• Levinson, Jerrold, 1992 [1996], “Pleasure and the Value of Works of Art”, The British Journal of Aesthetics, 32(4): 295–306. Reprinted in his The Pleasures of Aesthetics: Philosophical Essays, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 11–24. doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/32.4.295 (Scholar)
• McCloskey, Mary, 1987, Kant’s Aesthetic, New York: SUNY Press. (Scholar)
• Plato, Hippias Major. In Plato’s Complete Works, edited by John Cooper, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997. (Scholar)
• Saito, Yuriko, 2001, “Everyday Aesthetics”, Philosophy and Literature, 25)1): 87–95. doi:10.1353/phl.2001.0018 (Scholar)
• –––, 2007, Everyday Aesthetics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278350.001.0001 (Scholar)
• Scruton, Roger, 1983, “Understanding Music”, in his The Aesthetic Understanding: Essays in the Philosophy of Art and Culture, London: Carcanet. (Scholar)