WHAT IS THE NATURE OF AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE?| CHAPTER | FIVE Aesthetic Experience: A Question of Content Noél Carrolt Introduction For many philosophers, the notion of aesthetic experience is so central to the pai | losophy of art that they are inclined to call the entire field of inquiry “aesthetics” | ‘They believe that art can be defined in terms of aesthetic experience ~ for them, an | artwork just is something produced with the intention to promote aesthetic experi~ fence, And they believe thatthe degree of excellence found in an artwork can be mess~ lured in virtue of aesthetic experience - that is, an artwork is good exactly in ‘proportion to the amount of aesthetic experience it affords. For such philosophers ~ called aesthetic theorists of art ~ aesthetic experience 1s the philosopher's stone, ‘the charm that discloses all the secrtis of the philosophy of art, But obviowly before those mysteries can be unlocked, one must first offer an account of the nature of aesthetic experience. So in those precincts where the aesthetic theory of art presides, the fist order of business for the philosopher of artis to deliver such an account Of course, not all philosophers of art regard aesthetic experience as so utterly I central to the field as do aesthetic theorists. 1, for example, do not, Nevertheless, inas~ if ‘much as artists, art lovers, and philosophers are constanty talking about aesthetic ‘experience ~ in ways that are generally converging and reciprocally intelligible ~ it seems likely that they have something definite in mind, rather than something chimerical or mythic - something, moreover, alluded to so frequently that itis sig~ ficant enough to warrant the attention of any philosopher committed to elucicat~ 1 the prevalent concepts of the artwori. That Is, even If one dues not believe 23 aesthetic theorists do, that aesthetic experience is the philosophical cornerstone of the | ariworld, insofar as one is a philosopher of ar, one has an obligation to attemp: to clarify the concept of aesthetic experience.The purpose of this chapter isto do just that ~ to characterize aesthetic experi- ‘nce, notably with respect to the aesthetic experience of artworks. In this regard, ques- ions about whether the notion of aesthetic experience can be dragooned, ‘ define art or to calculate artistic value will be put to one side. Similarly, te issue of the aesthetic experience of nature will be deferred, for the most art, until after I have skeiched 2 positive account of the aesthetic experience of ar. ‘The notion of aesthetic experience has two components: the aesthetic and experi cence. Assuming that we have some inkling of what comprises an experience, the press- ing issue for us is what to make of “the aesthetic.” The word was introduced in the ‘ghteenth century by Alexander Baumgarten, initially to stand for sensitive know!- cilge, knowledge delivered by the senses, or sensations which, following Descartes, sibnia, and Wolfe, Baumgarten regarded as a matter of clear but indistinct ideas. However, even in Baumgerten's hands, the aesthetic came to be associated with the experience of arworks, where artworks appeared to be objects paradigmatically ected at sensitive cognition. This may seem strange to us, considering that litera ‘ure oF poetry fs leading artform, but one that is not primarily addtessed to the senses. Ye, insofar as the reigning theories of art in the elghteenth century were rep- resentation theories, and insofar as literature/poetry could be thought of provoking inner images (percepts for the imagination) by means of their representations! descriptions, literature could be construed as affording sensitive knowledge at one step removed, so to speak? However, even if much of what we call aesthetic experience corresponds to what 's sensed ~ elther perceived outwardly or “sensed” invvardly - the way the concept ‘has come to be applied exceeds its original usage. For example, the discovery and apprehension of the complex form of a novel like Joyce's Ulysses is today regarded as an exemplary instance of having an aesthetle experience, but it barely counts as ‘robust instance of the exercise of our powers of sensation, Consequently, in order to develop an adequate account of aesthetic experience, ‘we need to look beyond Baumgarten. Inthe period since Baumgarten, four major agproaches to defining aesthetic experience have emerged. They can be called: the afect-oriented approach, the epistemic approach, the axiological approach, and the cntent-oriented approach. Historically, elements ofthese approaches have been cont- bined im various ways, resulting in a diversity of thearies of aesthetic experience. In this essay, however, Iwill be concerned exclusively with these approaches in their pure forms, asking whether any of them can provide an adequate account of aesthetic ‘experience. For clearly if one of these approaches is satisfactory in Its pure form, then there is scant reason to cobble together a combinatory theory Jn what follows then, we will assay the strengths and weaknesses of these four approaches to characterizing aesthetic experience. Nevertheless, before proceeding any further, its perhaps only fair to admit tha I prefer a version of the content-oriented curactcrization of aesthetic experience. Thus the shape this chapter takes Is funda rmenrally that ofa disjunctive syllogism, setting out the four alternative approaches as the basic options in this arena of debate and then finding the content-oriented ‘approach to be the last one standing? 70] Nost carrot ‘The Affect-Oriented Approach ‘Affec-oriented approaches to the characterization of aesthetic experience take it to bye marked by a certain experlential quale, or pulsation, or peculiar feeling tone which Is sometimes referred to gingerly in the French tradition by the eircumlocution je ne sais quoi; Clive Bell thought oft as a highly distinctive feeling with which every tue lover of art is intimately familiar. Undoubtedly, the affect-oriented approach derives fiom Baumgarten’s correlation ofthe aesthetic with sensitive knowledge ~ perception, sensation, and, in short, feeling. Thus, on this view, aesthetic experience is thought to be 2 sort of feeling or affect ‘This suggestion, needless to say, provokes an inevitable question ~ namely, “what sort of feeling?" There are so many different kinds of feelings that might attend an ‘experience of a work of art ~ claustrophobia and a sense of oppressiveness in response to a film noir or clation while watching Ruth St. Denis's choreography for Soaring, and 50 on, Pethaps at one time or another virtually every feeling that a human can ‘undergo might figure as an ingredient in some aesthetic experience. But then saying that aesthetic experience is marked by some feeling is of no use, unless the fiele of relevant feelings can be appreciably narrowed. Simply having feelings in other words, ‘will not diffeccatite aesthetic experiences from other sors. ‘At this point, its often suggested that whatever other feelings aesthetic expetl- ence involves, ts always comprised of pleasure ~ either pleasure undiluted, or pleas- tre in response to or in combination withthe other feelings in play In the experience ‘hat is, something, it might be sai, is an aesthetic experience If and only if i is pleasurable ‘Yet obviously pleasure is not a sufficient condition for aesthetic experience, since sex, drugs, drink, and food, among other things, elicit felings of pleasure, though {indulging in these delights are not typically regarded as aesthetic experiences. Indeed, they are sometimes treated as the very antitheses to aesthetic experience. So iis ‘unlikely that if an experience involves pleasure, then itis automatically an aesthetic ‘experience rater than some other kind of experience. ‘But maybe pleasure isa necessary condition for aesthetic experience. However, the proposal that something is an aesthetic experience only if it involves pleasure fs suspect from several directions. Fist, many aesthetic experiences, even though they involve feelings, need not be defined by feelings of pleasure. As one circulates around the statue of "The Prince ofthe World” in St Sebald in Nurnberg, one sees that being his comely facade is @ mass of decay; beneath that surface handsomeness, che opering in the back of his cloak reveals the corruption of the flesh. Normal viewers do not feel, nor are they intended to feel, pleasure at this manifestation of bodily decompo- sition, They are meant to be disgusted which in turn, is intended to remind them “hat cartly existence is both Reting and foul, and that corporeal delights are futile and Vain, The statue is @ memento mor. Ths is also the intended or mandated affect of the death's heals that appear on tables Taden with lusciovs comestibles throughout the vanitas tradition of painting, as well as the design behind many contemporary ‘orks by artists like Damien Hirst, who compose works that encourage the co lation of mortality. ‘esthetic Experience: A Question of Content [77