Clinch 1
Sarah Clinch
Ewa Bogusz-Boltuc
Aesthetics
9 May 2010
‘Correct’ Conception: Aesthetic Understanding of Artworks
Aesthetics, whether detailing specifically the world of art and its methods of criticism,
or understood broadly as “a general theory of sensory knowledge… meant to complement
logic… [and] provide a comprehensive theory of knowledge” (Shusterman 300) about our
sensual world, remains to this day an unexhausted well of philosophical wealth. The
philosophy of aesthetics covers a wide range of theories and opinions regarding what
constitute beauty, ‘good’ art, and ‘art’ in general, etc. Of all the facets of aesthetics, one thing
remains vital in determining art status and quality: ‘correct’ conception. When dealing with
‘correctness’, I mean simply the ability to view the work in the way in which it was meant to
be viewed to obtain utmost understanding. As Nick Zangwill explains in “Art and
Audience,” “an ideal observer is just someone with full information” (323) of what he or she
views with aesthetic motives, and as Richard Wollheim adds, “a suitable spectator is a
spectator who is suitably sensitive, suitably informed, and, if necessary, suitably prompted”
(396). Theorists have debated about whether such ‘correct’ conception actually exists
objectively, or if each perceiver of a work of art creates their own subjective, albeit correct,
view/opinion; however, regardless of the objective reality of ‘correctness’ when viewing art,
the cumulative elements which aid in forming a ‘correct’ conception of art include: artist’s
Clinch 2
intention (informed RE: Wollheim), audience’s perception (sensitive), critic’s evaluation
(prompted) and the work’s qualities themselves.
I.
Artistic Intent
One way of determining the ‘correct’ perception of a work of art lies in determining
the intentions of the artist which “[have] come to mean those psychological factors in the
artist which cause him to work as he does” (Wollheim 404). Artist’s intentions stem from life
experiences, which cumulatively form the artists’ views on life and therefore his/her desires
for various commentary on the problems or issues of life. Understanding where an artist
comes from aids in understanding what they may be communicating with a piece of art, and
therefore ‘correctness’ of conception becomes possible, for “even when there are external
influencing factors that impinge on the artist’s decision-making, there are always some
properties of the work that cannot be explained without reference to the artist’s (intrinsic)
desire that the work should be a certain way” (Zangwill 326). Richard Wollheim reasons for
the significance of artistic intention for sharpening the ‘correctness’ of conception in his
article “On Pictorial Representation”: “representational meaning, indeed pictorial meaning in
general, is… dependent, not on intention as such, but on fulfilled intention… and intention is
fulfilled when the picture can cause, in a suitable spectator, an experience that tallies with the
intention” (405). Making the distinction between fulfilled intention and neutral (neither
fulfilled nor unfulfilled) intention dramatically reduces the room for error or critical upheaval
of the notion of ‘correct’ conception. Wollheim goes on to further support artistic intention,
for “the spectator’s knowledge of [it], however acquired, can legitimately mold what he sees
in the picture” (405). Without such knowledge of the artist’s intentions for how the work was
Clinch 3
meant to comment on an issue or simply provide aesthetic pleasure, viewers miss vital
opportunities for understanding and illumination of truth. Therefore, ‘correct’ conception
depends upon, among other things, knowledge and application of artist’s intentions to that
artist’s work of art which the intentions generate; suitability of the perceptions depend upon
“the sensitivity, the information, the prompting, that are required if the spectator is to see the
picture as the artist desires him to” (Wollheim 404). Conclusively speaking, a suitable
spectator’s intimate knowledge of an artist’s intentions for a specific work of art facilitates
their pursuit for ‘correct’ conception (informed (Wollheim 396) action).
II.
Audience’s Perception
Along with the artist’s intentions regarding a work of art, ‘correct’ conception also
depends upon the audience’s perceptions of the work. The audience as perceivers bear the
majority of the burden for ‘correctness’ of conception; for ultimately, regardless of artistic
intention or any other facet, the audience’s ability to ‘correctly’ perceive the work of art
determines whether that audience member actually conceives ‘correctly’. While Nick
Zangwill argues that “art has nothing essential to do with an audience” (315) in terms of art’s
status, art’s ‘correct’ conception requires an individual or full audience to view its physical
appearance and derive meaning thereof. Arguably, “an artist always creates for a public of
some sort” (Dickie 51), be it as a primary function and purpose of the piece (“basic art
status”) or as a “derivative or parasitic” (Zangwill 316) utility of a work dependent upon
another with “basic art status” (Zangwill 316). George Dickie lays out his definition for an
artwork as “an artifact of a kind created to be presented to an artworld public” (53) which
then, as logically follows, when presented with the artwork, ‘correctly’ conceives the piece,
Clinch 4
and validates the artwork within that Artworld. All these steps, contingent upon an audience,
require an audience which is “suitably sensitive” (Wollheim 396) to the art and its ‘correct’
conception.
Richard Shusterman’s unique proposition of “Somaesthetics” instigates a plea for
study into how to hone the physical skills of an audience member, in order to obtain ‘correct’
conception of an artwork. Rather than attempting to introduce a wholly new theory into the
already-convoluted structure of the philosophy of aesthetics, Shusterman instead focuses on
linking his theory of somaesthetics to the initial understanding of aesthetics as “sensory
perception” (Shusterman 300), and by going “even further by also embracing a crucial
feature that Baumgarten unfortunately omitted from his aesthetic program – cultivation of the
body” (Shusterman 299) in finding ‘correct’ physical conception of the sensual world.
Shusterman discusses different branches within an area of study which, when explored fully,
coalesce into greater understanding on behalf of the whole discipline. For somaesthetics,
Shusterman proposed theoretical study, as well as “a program of practical exercise or
training” where “one learns to instill harmony of mind with respect to a given theme or
thought” (300), and then goes on to suggest specialized forms of somaesthetics to
accommodate these different branches: “analytic somaesthetics… pragmatic somaesthetics…
[and] practical somaesthetics” (304-306). “Analytic somaesthetics” includes theory and
examination into the workings of somaesthetics hypothetically, much as modern philosophy
works with all its various sub-disciplines. Through a theoretical understanding of the
workings of a discipline, or the “historical-social analysis… of various body doctrines, norms
and practices” (Shusterman 304), philosophical bantering over ideas can then evolve into a
Clinch 5
more specific, pragmatic approach to the discipline: “proposing specific methods of somatic
improvement and engaging in their comparative critique” (Shusterman 304), and so
Shusterman’s “pragmatic somaesthetics” exists as the next step up from mere theoretical
study. From there, the further step becomes fulfilling the methods, and so “practical
somaesthetics” is “concerned not with saying but with doing” (Shusterman 307). It is this
third stage which proves most helpful when gauging ‘correct’ conception of art, as well as in
perfecting technique and ability to create the “suitable spectator” discussed above. Because
even though “our ability to discern aesthetic features is dependent upon our possession of
good eyesight, hearing, and so on, people normally endowed with senses and understanding
may nevertheless fail to discern them” (Sibley 134). If a spectator hones their skills at
noticing detail, regardless whichever of the five senses is required for perception, then their
conception of the piece reaps greater rewards than if they were unfocused and untrained in
viewing art. With properly sensitive (Wollheim 396) audience members to view a work,
‘correct’ conception allows for greater understanding and appreciation of art.
III.
Critic’s Evaluation
While audience members hold the majority of the weight of responsibility for ‘correct
conception’, they remain influenced by many factors to aid in finding ‘correctness’. The
Artworld, as explored by Danto, allows for some guidance on how to view certain works, as
well as creating an infrastructure for audiences to utilize for anticipating qualities of works.
Within the Artworld, critics act to frame mechanisms for understanding art, and also work to
funnel audience perceptions toward proper conception. As Danto explains, “to see something
as art requires something the eye cannot descry – an atmosphere of artistic theory, a
Clinch 6
knowledge of the history of art: an artworld” (32); ‘correct’ conception requires not only
honed physical ability, but an understanding of what has come before, and so the contention
regarding the Artworld validly posits that critical discussion and theory within an established
realm aids toward obtaining ‘correct’ conception. Jerrold Levinson, in his essay “Defining
Art Historically,” deals with the idea of the historically-based Artworld and its significance
when determining art status of a work: “arthood is not an intrinsic exhibited property of a
thing, but rather a matter of being related in the right way to human activity and thought”
(35), and this relativity, when understood fully by an audience, creates understanding
through which ‘correct’ conception can occur. Because “art is necessarily backward-looking”
(35), perceivers must also look backward in order to understand a work’s position within the
Artworld: Levinson argues that every work of art stems from a previously-created piece, and
therefore even the newest piece of avant-garde expression links back to the original, first
artwork. Knowing the various connections (or at least being able to recognize them) allows
for enlightenment and understanding of truths otherwise not evident to a perceiver. Thus,
‘correct’ conception includes knowledge of, and prompting (Wollheim 396) by, critic’s
views, as well as the historical legitimacy of artworks, because in order to wholly understand
the truths of a piece, one cannot simply view it in an isolated manner: comparative study
often reveals the most intriguing truths.
IV.
Qualities of a Work
Both audience members and professional critics view art works through the same
basic means: through examining the properties of the work, and deeming them 1) aesthetic 2)
nonaesthetic 3) ‘good’ 4) ‘bad’ 5) ‘moral’ 6) ‘immoral’ and the like. Monroe Beardsley
Clinch 7
defines artwork as “something produced with the intention of giving it the capacity to satisfy
the aesthetic interest” (58), and therefore further clarifies by conceding that “one can fail in
various ways in trying to produce an artwork: the work may not be as original as was
hoped… or the work may not be the kind of work hoped for… but as far as [he] can see, the
only way one can fail to produce an artwork after setting out to produce something
…satisfying the aesthetic interest is by failing to make the physical object one tries to make”
(62). ‘Correct’ conception therefore necessitates high quality of workmanship on a piece of
art, so that an audience member can see “the physical object [an artist] tries to make” (62).
The individual characteristics of a work cumulatively make up the artwork as a whole, and so
identifying these characteristics individually can aid in understanding how they work
together, what they achieve, and perhaps why they do so. While “all of us… pay aesthetic
attention more readily and easily to such outstanding and easily noticeable things” (Sibley
139), even the slightest detail of a work can change the entire value or feeling of it, and so
‘correct’ conception depends mightily upon every facet of a work of art, and how they work
together to convey meaning or pleasure. Will well-placed colors, lines, shapes, framing, and
other nonaesthetic features, aesthetic pleasure forms, and so ‘correct’ conception flows from
the decisions of the artist when placing these features, and from the subsequent aesthetic
pleasure derived from them.
This study into understanding various facets of ‘correct’ conception do not seek to
define art, aesthetics, or other complex terms. It seeks merely to understand the best means
for obtaining the most pleasure and enlightenment through viewing a work of art. Though the
facets explored here do not exhaust the various components which together make up
Clinch 8
‘correct’ conception, they nonetheless provide a skeletal means for theoretically framing
such ‘correctness’. While the audience of a work of art overwhelmingly dominates, due to
their prominent place as the actual ‘viewers’, they require other mechanisms for
understanding in a ‘correct’ manner what the artwork conveys. Through understanding the
artist’s intentions for putting forth the artwork, be it merely aesthetic pleasure or as a
commentary on an issue, as well as extant critical dialogue on an artwork and the Artworld’s
structure as a whole (to understand the individual work’s place within), an audience member
can begin to view the artwork in the way in which it was meant to be viewed to attain the
best, most fulfilling insight into the piece. ‘Correct’ conception also requires good quality of
a work, through masterful exhibition of detail and coherence within the piece, and sharpened
skills for physical perception of the piece to garner understanding from the details and
cumulative coherence of the qualities. As Nick Zangwill entreaties in his essay “Art and
Audience,” “we need a conception of art according to which it is intelligible that people
value making and perceiving works of art; and that means that it must be intelligible that the
property or properties that we single out as the object or the artist’s intentions or the
audience’s experiences are thought by them to be valuable” (320 bold mine). Through
‘correct’ conception of works of art, their value within human society increases
exponentially, and so even though ‘correct’ conception primarily benefits individual
perceivers of individual artworks, it also, as an added bonus, intensifies the value of art in
general, making it vital for humans’ understanding of the world, and even themselves.
Clinch 9
Works Cited
Beardsley, Monroe. “An Aesthetic Definition of Art.” P. Lamarque & S. Olsen. Aesthetics
and the Philosophy of Art, pp. 55-62. Print.
Danto, Arthur C. “The Artworld.” P. Lamarque & S. Olsen. Aesthetics and the Philosophy of
Art, pp. 27-34. Print.
Levinson, Jerrold. “Defining Art Historically.” P. Lamarque & S. Olsen. Aesthetics and the
Philosophy of Art, pp. 35-46. Print.
Shusterman, Richard. “Somaesthetics: A Disciplinary Proposal.” The Journal of Aesthetics
and Art Criticism. 57.3 (1999): 299-313. Web.
Sibley, Frank. “Aesthetic Concepts.” P. Lamarque & S. Olsen. Aesthetics and the Philosophy
of Art, pp. 127-141. Print.
Zangwill, Nick. “Art and Audience.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 57.3
(1999): 315-332. Web.