Beardsley argues that aesthetic objects cannot be defined by the subjective attitudes of the viewer, taking an objectivist position based on the properties of the work of art. He uses the principle of distinction and the principle of perceivability to exclude the artist’s intentions or physical aspects from aesthetic objects, allowing the viewer to focus on the essential properties of the work.
Beardsley argues that aesthetic objects are those properties of a work of art that can be properly appreciated and criticized. He takes the objectivist position that aesthetic objects cannot be defined by the subjective attitudes of the viewer, but only by the properties of the work of art itself. Therefore, he uses the principle of distinction and the principle of perceivability to exclude from aesthetic objects those things in a work of art that cannot be aesthetic objects.
First, Beardsley presents the principle of distinction, which argues against the position that the artist’s intention is the aesthetic object of a work of art. He posits that an attribute of a work of art cannot be distinguished from the work of art in order to be an aesthetic object. Therefore, he says that the artist’s intention, which is distinct from the artwork, cannot be an attribute of the artwork and should be excluded as an aesthetic object. This is to eliminate the possibility that the artist’s intention is distorted by subjective interpretation when it is transmitted to the viewer, and to focus on the essential properties of the work of art.
The principle of perceivability states that certain properties of a work of art must be directly perceivable in order for it to be an aesthetic object. Beardsley says that things that are not perceptible at all or cannot be directly perceived as part of the experience of a work of art are called physical aspects and should be excluded as aesthetic objects. For example, if we say of a painting, ‘This painting has refreshing colors and a flowing sense of movement,’ we are making a statement about an aesthetic object that can be directly perceived by looking at the painting. However, if we say, “This painting uses oil paint as a material,” or “This painting was created in 1892,” we are making a statement about a physical aspect of the painting that cannot be directly perceived by looking at the painting.
These principles play an important role in providing objective criteria for evaluating works of art. By synthesizing these principles, Beardsley identifies which of the attributes of a work of art can be perceived objectively, and makes it clear that when interpreting the meaning of a work of art as an aesthetic object, only objective attributes that are inseparable from the work of art should be considered. This is important because it ensures the objectivity of aesthetic experience, allowing for a pure appreciation of art that is not distorted by the subjective interpretation of the viewer.
Beardsley’s argument serves to clarify the criteria for art criticism and appreciation. By focusing on the essential attributes of a work, the viewer is able to gain a deeper understanding and appreciation. Art critics are also able to assess the value of a work of art through objective criteria, which allows for a more fair and reliable evaluation of the work of art. Beardsley’s objectivist stance is still an important criterion in the evaluation and appreciation of works of art today.
Nevertheless, Beardsley’s theories have been criticized. Some scholars argue that his objectivist stance limits the possibility of multiple interpretations of a work of art. Art interacts with the subjective experience of the viewer to form meaning, and Beardsley’s position overlooks this. If a work of art can be evaluated solely on its own merits, it excludes the emotional response of the individual and their cultural background. In this respect, his theory is criticized for not fully reflecting the richness and multifaceted nature of art appreciation.
While Beardsley’s principle of distinction and the principle of perceivability provide rigorous criteria for evaluating artworks, they are limited in that they do not fully reflect the subjective experience of art. The aesthetic experience of a work of art is enriched by the interaction between the artwork and the viewer, which cannot be fully explained by simply looking at the objective properties of the artwork. Therefore, while Beardsley’s theory provides one important perspective on art evaluation, it should be considered insufficient as a standard for all art appreciation.
Beardsley’s argument allows us to recognize the importance of objective criteria in understanding and evaluating the aesthetic object of a work of art. At the same time, however, we shouldn’t forget that the subjective experience of art appreciation is also an important factor. This means that a work of art is more than just a physical object; it lives and breathes in the interaction with the viewer. Ultimately, art appreciation is a process of discovering the true value of a work of art through a balance of objectivity and subjectivity.
