Dickie, Ch 6

In Chapter 6 “Aesthetic Perception: Seeing As,” of Art and the Aesthetic, Dickie filters through one of the most recent aesthetic-attitude theories given by Virgil Aldrich. His purpose, he says, is due to it being most current as well as being related to the central notions of Wittgenstein’s philosophy. Dickie explains that Aldrich raises the question of the proper aspects of an aesthetic object. Aldrich believes that there is a specific perception that will reveal a work of art or nature as an aesthetic object. Aldrich decides that there exists an individual power in an aesthetic object that can describe itself as such. A quote Dickie uses comes from an article printed in 1963 that supports Aldrich’s belief which is worth reiterating:

When the work of art is looked at in a certain way, one becomes aware of the aspects that dawn in the aesthetic space of the composition. These are proper parts of the work of art as an aesthetic object, and blindness to these is the sort of aspect-blindness that disqualifies one both for aesthetic perception and the assessment of the merits of the work as an aesthetic object in that view of it.

Virgil Aldrich, Philosophy of Art( Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1963)


Dickie asserts that if one is not already convinced that there is only one objective way to view an aesthetic-attitude theory and that all others are subjective in there descriptions then one would not be convinced in Aldrich’s ideas. The rest of the chapter uses Wittgenstein and E. H. Gombrich’s interest in changing aspects of ambiguous objects and how Aldrich’s two modes of perception play a role in this. Though a suggested perception an ambiguous object will change form. The well known duck-rabbit picture is used a visual example.



Reaction


I think that some of the things that come up here, as with most academic papers, seem useful ideas and some not as much.   As a generalization, western philosophy seems contradictory of itself to me.  Philosophy sets out to find truth through the exploration of all possibilities of some abstract and then tries to fit "it" into a visual model in order to better understand it and ultimately recreate that abstract in some way in the future.  Control issues? However, an abstract is just that--a formless idea without physical form or demonstration so its almost pathetic that the great thinkers of our human existence have been chasing at an improbable task and never realized their efforts might be in vain.  Though these assertions could be defined as existential in their nature, I believe our fundamental and quite typical human struggle is a continuous battle to gain power by defining, categorizing, and controlling the world around us.  Is this not futile?  Has not the entire development of western culture since the “Enlightenment,” which is a total misnomer (it should have been named the “further from the truth era”), been about the acquisition of control over nature in which small successes then  give the illusion of individual power?  What does this have to do with Dickie you ask? Everything, from my current perspective!  Simply because the entire field of philosophy relates to how we all view the world we live in.  We can thank the ancient greeks for opening the can of worms that has been stinking up western culture for a really long time now.  Proper aspects of an aesthetic object?   Individual aesthetic power?  Come on. The world we live in and everything we experience is nothing more that an illusion.  You may disagree and that is your right, right?  Your one true right, maybe?  Humans are visual based organisms who learn by use of visual models that are created by various stimuli in our environment, described in three dimensions, and transformed into electro-chemical pulses in our brains to make sense of what we experience outside ourselves.   These models are stored in memory, constantly recalled, to use in comparison to new objects or experiences in order to more efficiently understand these brand new experiences the physical world.  New against old.  How many times have you heard, “you have got to see it to believe it?”  Why is seeing a fundamental for truth.  If you can see it and touch it then it’s a sealed deal.  See + Touch =Reality?  Especially out of context in which the ideas of forms exist, right?  That seems to be current equation for truth in western society, no?   I am sure I could easily be challenged on this but this area of the perspective has gone greatly under-explored in western development and that may be just the routine that is underlying all human struggles while attempting to conquer struggle.  Basically, what I am getting at is I think we can no longer use old models to explain the new developing world as a means for understanding.  It's outdated for our evolution and its taking us in circles.