Introduction:
Yuri Borev, in his book “Aesthetics” states that: “Aesthetics has a long history. In the course of its development not only aesthetics views changed but the range of questions it embraces, its subjects and its purpose.” In this article, we will get to see how all of these concepts and the whole purpose “aesthetics as a pure theoretical subject” has been challenged.
The criticism that has been severely leveled against aesthetics has been exceptionally exclaimed by Saprashott Himself as that people have not only criticized the nature characteristics and features of aesthetics, but they have criticized the project of doing aesthetics itself. The criticism could be easily categorized as the philosophical as well as non-philosophical challenges posed Against the domain of aesthetics, which is an independent branch of philosophy.
Main Aspect
In layman terminology, we can understand the very fact that these philosophers who imply the use of reason, logic and analytical tools in order to penetrate deep into the artwork, the main problem lies in their activity and the consequences of this action. These philosophers as has been exclaimed by the Layman They are indulging in verbal confabulations and fabrications under the enigma of trying to make a general universal theory of aesthetic appraisal. This general universal conceptualization of creativity and artwork. This whole idea of these philosophers is nothing more than miasma, whose ill fate has been predefined. It is simply because of the reason that these philosophers are having no primary direct contact or understanding about the delicate intricacies within the art structure. The so-called philosophers are having a very selective approach, and they are particularly interested in only a singular specific kind of a work of art. These philosophers are using reason and having an academic discourse on the aesthetic experiences which tends to make this aesthetic experience dull and vague. It is simply because of the reason that if he will take in the normal ordinary person’s perspective, we will find that aesthetics, artwork and creativity are the entities which Should be appreciated as well as it provides us with a sense of pleasure. But if he will look into the philosopher project, first of all the theories that they are trying to formulate, it are not applicable to all the artworks or even if it is applicable, it is applicable only to the theories or the work of art of a specific category and not in general or a universal mechanism could be thrashed Over all the work of art.
It has also been highlighted by the art critics that just in the way how art historians are trying to collect essential data. They are interested in the evolution of the existing facts pertaining to the development of statics and artwork. These philosophers are not taking pain in order to grasp these delicate no houses, these particular technique Of creating a work of art. When the philosopher think that he has understood subjectivity or creativity or art in itself, this explain a wrong assumption of that particular thinker simply because the person who makes that art believes that all of these work of arts are nothing but an expression that has been given to the deepest feelings and emotions of the artist no matter how intelligent, rational or logical, you may be, you can never penetrate within the closed chambers of the deepest creativity within the core of the artist. Those things are reserved only for a subjective appraisal.
These philosophers are only indulging in activities that are not beneficial or productive for an ordinary person or the artist. It is not a value addition into the delicate understanding of the concept of art itself. Rather, this is just an academic discourse, which makes the whole activity of aesthetics or creativity. A distant pursuit, as in the case of an ordinary person who is just viewing all of these works of art within eyes to appreciate evoking emotions and deepest feelings within the observer.
It is worthy to mention the very fact that these philosophers are unleashing a serious anarchy and destruction of the ideas, they are causing more problems and confusion about what is art, what is creativity or what is it to be an artist.
Conclusion:
Philosophers have ventured into a subjective sphere which is dictated, defined and understood through the lens of personal interpretations and meanings that are provided subjectively to these entities of creativity or the exquisite literature that is available at hand to be cherished. These philosophers have taken a very cumbersome term in this subjective field with vision of creating a universal theory, and this has ultimately caused more problems, and led to anarchy. Shyamala Gupta in the book, “Art, Beauty and Creativity” uses the line that “philosophers are making an unwanted venture and interference in the simple act of appreciating art” because of the fact that “philosophers are having remote and second hand knowledge about the merits and values of art” and in the end since they do not possess any solid foundation of knowledge of intricate techniques and delicacies of the artwork and since they are presumptuous- the act of determining any truth about the value of artwork by a philosopher, or the case of aesthetics is lacking legitimacy.
Do share your review of this article in the comment section. Like, engage and spread the word!
References:
Yuri Borev; Aesthetics; Natalia Belskaya…Yuvgeri Philippov; Progress Publishers, 1985.
Art, Beauty and creativity: Indian and western aesthetics; Shyamala Gupta; 2021.
Cambridge source: https://www.cambridgescholars.com/resources/pdfs/978-1-4438-9891-1-sample.pdf
