Aesthetic normativity and suitable prompting

Keywords: empirical aesthetics, philosophical aesthetics, Wollheim, Wittgenstein, autism, aspect blindness, aesthetic normativity

Abstract

This Editor's column summarises some of the insights I got from Richard Wollheim over the years, and from a recent Teams-chat with students in my class. Most notably: the role of suitable prompting in aesthetic normativity. In a sense, these insights help me understand this remark from Wittgenstein: `The existence of the experimental method makes us think we have the means of solving the problems which trouble us; though problem and method pass one another by.' (Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 232e).

References

Barthes, Roland. 1981. “The death of the author.” In Theories of Authorship, edited by John Caughie, 208–213. London, Boston, and Henley: Routledge.

Ekman, Paul, and Wallace V. Friesen. 1978. Facial Action Coding System: A Technique for the Measurement of Facial Movement. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Gerwen, Rob van. 2020. “What They See is What We Get in Film: Reality Tells the Fiction.” Aesthetic Investigations 3 (2): 365–386.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G.E.M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.

Wollheim, Richard. 1980. “Criticism as Retrieval.” In Art and its Objects. Second edition, 185–204. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

. 1988. Painting as an Art. Princeton / London: Princeton University Press / Thames and Hudson.

. 1993. “Pictorial Style: Two Views.” In The Mind and its Depths, 171–184. Cambridge (Mass.), London (England): Harvard University Press.

. 2001. “On Pictorial Representation.” In Richard Wollheim on the Art of Painting. Art as Representation and Expression, edited by Rob van Gerwen, 13–27. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.

Published
2020-12-31