Aesthetics
1. Introduction
2. Beauty
3. Art
4. Psychoanalytical aesthetics
5. Semiotic aesthetics
6. Aestheticisation
1
1. Introduction
The word aesthetics is derived from the Greek aisthesis, which means  the ability to
feel . Generally speaking, aesthetics deals with the nature of beauty and the related
categories of comedy, tragedy and the sublime. Aesthetics is furthermore related to
art and the feelings it evokes. The basis of aesthetical knowledge is reflection which
accompanies artistic creativity and how it is received.
The term itself,  aesthetics was introduced into the language of philosophy in the
middle of 18th century by Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten (1714 - 1762) in his book
Aesthetica. He used this term to define the knowledge of sensual beauty and all no-
tions related to sensual impressions. Thanks to Kant, aesthetics became associated
with the theory of perception and theory of taste or feeling of pleasure.
At present, aesthetics is certainly not a uniform discipline. Its scope of interest which
ranges from the process of artistic creation, how a work of art is received, to the for-
mation of assessment, requires the scholar to utilise a variety of particular scientific
methods such as psychology, sociology and semiotics.
Is it possible for art and beauty to be satisfactorily defined? What makes a given
object worthy of being called a piece of art? Why are certain people called artists? Is
knowledge of any kind needed to admire works of art?
2
2. Beauty
Aesthetics is most often dubbed the science of beauty and the feelings this beauty
arouses in us. But what is this beauty? Can beauty be defined?
For the Ancient Greeks  beauty was not only assigned to things, forms, colours, and
sounds that were beautiful but also ideas, customs and manners. For Plato a person s
character or a law created by man could be beautiful. Furthermore, Plato did not
believe the study of beauty to be a problem of art as he believed this to be something
which simply imitates the illusory, superficial world but does not reveal beauty in
itself. Thus, he believed beauty to be connected with Eros and love which he claimed
mediates between what is sensory and extra-sensory i.e. between the illusory world
of phenomena and the world of stable and unchanging ideas. From this point of
view, beauty was indistinguishable from the idea of good, together with what is
spiritual, moral and intellectual. Eros as described in The Symposium is a force that
propels man towards goodness, happiness, wisdom, the Absolute and beauty.
As early as the 5th century BC, an alternative definition appeared which was in con-
trast to platonic objectivism and absolutism. Its authors were the well known Ancient
relativists, the sophists who claimed that beauty is that which is  pleasant to the
eye and ear . It was, therefore, both a subjective and sensual understanding of the
concept.
Despite these differences of opinion, the Ancient Greeks were able to construct a
general and  classical theory of beauty which was in use until the 18th century. It
asserted that beauty is based on the proportion of the components of a thing or, to
be more precise, the relationship of these proportions and the correct structure and
composition of these components.
The Ancient Pythagoreans undoubtedly had a great influence on the establishment of
this theory. They noticed that perfect proportions can be established using numbers.
Their starting point was the observation of the harmony of sounds. They found that
the strings of an instrument oscillate harmonically when the relation to their length
is a mathematical relation expressed in ratios and simple numbers. This discovery
was then applied to the fine arts, architecture, sculpture as well as the beauty of
the living form. The consequence of this discovery was the attempt to find perfect
proportions in all the arts. In Greek music certain melodies were known as nomoi
(or  laws ) whilst in the fine arts certain proportions were accepted and called kanon
(or  rule ).
The words of criticism that this theory later encountered were associated with a
fundamental change in taste which accompanied the appearance of the wholly  non-
classical art of the late-Baroque and the subsequent Romantic. As early as 1750,
Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten claimed that beauty can be reached only through the
senses and not the mind. Moreover, 18th century psychological analyses of everyday
experiences attempted to show that beauty is not dependent on any particular pro-
portions or regular structuring of individual components. The Romantics claimed
that the opposite of the traditional theory of beauty is true, and beauty actually con-
sists of a lack of any regularity; it is an expression of feeling, fullness and vitality.
The 18th century also initiated a criticism of the very concept of beauty which was
then seen as an ambiguous expression referring to a wide variety of ideas, the focus
being wholly on whatever appeals to us.
3
Kant likewise criticised the classical concept of beauty. He pointed out that all judge-
ments concerning beauty are merely generalisations, obtained through induction, of
isolated statements and, as with all generalisations, they can be erroneous. According
to Kant, this does not necessarily lead to a purely subjective understanding of aes-
thetic experiences. He claimed that aesthetic experiences and inclinations are not
induced by impressions themselves or by judgements but by their sum action and
that they are induced only by that which is able to arouse both. Moreover, we can
only arrive at this state through what is in accordance with our nature.
Therefore when we are affected by such an action it is said to be universal and neces-
sary. Due to the fact that human minds have the same faculties we can assume that
an object which aesthetically impacts upon one subject affects another subject in a
similar manner. In other words, beauty is that which appeals to us with subjective
necessity in a universal, direct and entirely disinterested manner.
In the 20th century, many theorists began to defend subjectivism and claim that beau-
ty depends primarily on its surrounding social system as well as its historical context.
The view also began to take hold that beauty is not something as valuable as it was
once believed. Furthermore, this was not an essential problem for art. Avant-garde
artists believe that if art shocks, if it  strikes the audience then this is more important
then if it marvels at its own beauty. The shock is not only achieved through beauty
but its source can also be ugliness or simply the fact that it surprises us. As the French
poet (whose mother was Polish), Guillaume Apollinaire wrote that ugliness appeals to
us nowadays as much as beauty.
The conviction about the superfluity of beauty was given fine expression by the
writer, William S. Maugham (1874 - 1965). He pondered over whether other peo-
ple are the same as him. He claimed that one cannot contemplate beauty for too
long and that there has never been a more false assertion than the first line of Keats
Endymion. He claimed that something of beauty works upon a person magically
although the mind soon departs from it. Those who spend hours looking at a work
of art are not to be trusted. Beauty is ecstasy, something as simple as the scent of a
rose which can be smelt but nothing more.
He maintained that the theory of art is something tiresome and leads nowhere unless
it does not discuss beauty but discusses art. He believed that of all the world s paint-
ings, Titian s Entombment, perhaps contains the greatest amount of pure beauty and
all that remains for the critic to say is  go and see it . The critic can only comment
on the history of the painting or the artist s biography and nothing more. People, he
believed, have a tendency to add other concepts to their definition of beauty such as
loftiness, sensitivity, or the fulfilment of human needs because they are not satisfied
with beauty but beauty is perfect and is thus only able to hold our attention for a
moment, such is our nature.
Maugham wonders why no one has ever been able to explain why the Doric temple
of Paestum is more beautiful than a cold glass of beer unless perhaps other factors,
unrelated to beauty, have been taken into consideration. He believes beauty is like a
blind alley, it is like a mountain which one can climb but upon reaching the summit
go no further.
Nowadays, the category of beauty is used more often in colloquial language than in
aesthetics. Contemporary artists approach the concept of beauty with a certain dis-
tance and sense of irony. But is it possible to define art more easily than beauty?
4
3. Art
What causes one object and not another to be worthy of being called a work of art?
Why are certain people called artists? What differentiates art from other forms of
human activity? The question seems particularly appropriate today when galleries
exhibit such objects as piles of bricks or vacuum cleaners.
In the Middle Ages, art was most often described as ars, and techne in Ancient
Greece. These terms - techne in Ancient Greece and later ars in Rome, in the Middle
Ages, in the beginnings of the modern era and even in the Renaissance signified the
capacity to make an object: a house, statue, ship, pot, or even clothes; in addition, it
could also signify the capacity to command an army, survey a field or even the ability
to win over an audience.
All these capacities were known as the arts; this entailed knowledge of specific rules:
different rules governed the work of the architect, tailor, strategist, geometrician or
orator. The idea of rules was, at that time, inseparably linked to the concept of art. It
not only entailed skilful production but, above all, the knowledge of these rules i.e.
expert knowledge. Thus, both craft and science was to be found within the scope of
art. Interestingly, poetry was once not regarded as art, however, this changed when
Aristotle described its rules and treated it as a skill in his famous work, Poetics.
These concepts of  Art were still in use in the Renaissance although it was at this
time that the meaning began to change and the concepts of craft and science were no
longer associated with it. In the 18th century, a new definition postulated by Charles
Batteux (1713 - 1778) became popular. He claimed that what was common to all art
was the fact that it emulates reality and extracts from it what is beautiful. Batteux
posited five  fine arts : painting, sculpture, music, poetry and dance as well as two
related arts: architecture and diction.
In the 20th century this definition was questioned. Benedetto Croce (1866 - 1952)
noticed that a feature particular to art was expression. At this time, artists stopped
emulating simply the world that surrounded them and began to extend their work.
The discovery of photography and film raised questions as to whether they also
could be categorised as art. The same question concerned also poster art, advertis-
ing, popular art and modern and commercial modes of mass communication.
According to the Polish scholar, Władysław Tatarkiewicz (1886 - 1980), for any defi-
nition of art to be in line with the changes that occur in artistic production it must
have an  alternative character . He claimed that Art is the reproduction of things,
the construction of forms or the expression of experiences. If the product of art
reproduces, constructs or expresses then it has the ability either to delight, to move
or shock the audience. However, is this an adequate definition in a situation where
artists themselves reject the categories of beauty and art?
The dadaism of the early 20th century is often termed  anti-art negating the aes-
thetic nature of art. To highlight this point, Marcel Duchamp (1887 - 1968), using a
pseudonym, took part in a exhibition in which he displayed a urinal which he had
previously bought in a shop. The piece was called Fountain.
What is interesting is the fact that this  work of art , together with other controver-
sial pieces by Duchamp, were analysed and examined by theorists as forms of art.
He himself questioned whether, it is possible at all to create a work which will not
5
be seen as a  work of art ? Timothy Binkley (1943 - ) claimed that art has become
aware of the fact that a great deal more than simply the creation of aesthetic objects
can be included within its bounds. Art is a practice and thus something that mocks
art can itself be art in the same way that something that mocks philosophy can itself
be philosophy.
Modern attempts to explain how Beethoven s Fifth Symphony, the paintings of
Picasso or the interestingly named  Fountain urinal can be viewed as works of art
are known collectively as institutional aesthetics.
One of the main representatives of institutional aesthetics, the famous aesthetician,
George Dickie (1926 - ) claims that a work of art can be classified as (1) an artefact,
which (2) due to a particular characteristic feature is viewed by a member of the art
world as open to judgement and criticism.
Consequently, every work of art is an artefact i.e. it is the result of somebody s work.
According to Dickie, even a piece of wood washed up on a beach can be regarded
as an artefact if it is picked up and exhibited in a gallery. In other words, the very
process of exhibiting the piece of wood in a gallery so that other people may see it
is seen as  working upon it. To continue,  the artistic community or art world may
be made up of artists, people employed in art institutions, critics, theorists, art his-
torians as well as the audience.
The process of putting forward a piece of work for judgement and criticism by
the community need not be associated with a specific convention or ceremony but
merely that a given individual would like other members of the art world to take
note of what has been put forward as a potential piece of work and consequently
attempt to evaluate it.
This evaluation can either be favourable or unfavourable for the nominee which
means that the work can either be accepted or rejected, valued positively or nega-
tively. What is more, the person nominating a potential work of art may find that
his/her position in the art world will be accordingly strengthened or weakened. It
follows then that if an artist nominates a potential work of art which is then evalu-
ated negatively by the art world then he/she will be seen as a poor artist. Similarly,
a curator of an gallery who puts forward a potential work of art which is the nega-
tively evaluated by the art world will be seen as a poor curator.
As can be seen, this institutional approach allows almost any object to become a
work of art; there is no specific kind of evaluation that takes place. The evaluation
stems, simply, from an institutional context in which the object is found.
Institutional aesthetics is free from simplistic or dichotomous value judgements such
as  good or  bad . Nevertheless, it can be seen to be caught up in a vicious circle
where art is seen to be anything a particular group of people (the art world) de-
scribes it to be, however, what deems someone a member of the art world is the
ability to identify a given object as a work of art.
Therefore,  a work of art and  members of the art world are defined in terms of
each other. Nonetheless, the definition of art as posited by institutional aesthetics re-
minds us that what defines a work of art is not a universal canon but whether a work
of art appeals to us or not together with cultural factors and social institutions.
6
4. Psychoanalytical Aesthetics
If one looks at the history and development of the concepts of art and beauty, one
may come to the conclusion that aesthetics did not have great prospects of becoming
an autonomous discipline. This explains why aesthetics was always open to research
in narrower disciplines such as psychology.
Within psychology, the most inspiring of schools for aesthetics was psychoanalysis.
The father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939) studied the human psy-
che and discovered it comprised three elements: the id, ego and superego.
The Id (Latin  it ) holds all primeval urges. Freud described two kinds which were
oriented towards either: life or death. The first kind is associated mainly with our
sexuality whilst the second is related to our tendency towards self-destruction which
generally takes the form of aggression often externally directed or directed towards
an object which acts as its substitute.
In other words, the id is the subjective part of the mind which is focused on satisfy-
ing the instinctual and biological needs of the body which are directly associated
with the physiological processes from which one draws his/her energy.
The Ego (Latin  I ) is formed due to the fact that the satisfaction of one s needs re-
quires appropriate action within a real and objective world. Therefore, there must
be a differentiation between what is in the mind and what is in the external world.
The third realm, the Superego comprises the internal representation of traditional
values and social ideals conveyed to a child by its parents (i.e. their interpretation
of these values) and reinforced through rewards and punishments. The id functions
unconsciously, the ego consciously, however, the superego operates subconsciously
or consciously. The superego acts as an axiological code which suppresses all needs
which are not in accordance with this code. This explains the development of men-
tal conflicts - unrealised dreams, substitute behaviour, neurotic behaviour as well as
countless forms of creative and artistic endeavour which are their expression.
According to Freud, the development of civilisation has been made possible by sup-
pressing our instincts and directing our energies stemming from our urges towards
goals which are socially acceptable and that can foster culture. This phenomenon is
known as sublimation. For example, in psychoanalysing Leonardo de Vinci we might
find that his paintings of the Virgin Mary were the subliminal expression of a long-
ing for his mother from whom he was separated at a young age.
Freud highlighted that the content of a work of art was more important for him than
either its technical or formal qualities. Thus psychoanalysis examines the  driving
forces behind artistic creation without investigating its beauty or its creative capac-
ity. Freud claims that the aesthetic evaluation of a work of art and the justification
of having an artistic gift do not lie in the realms of psychoanalysis. He believed,
however, that psychoanalysis can play a deciding role in all problems that relate to
the human imagination.
In Freud s view, the artist is like the neurotic who aims at satisfying his open or sup-
pressed unconventional desires.
He claims that, like the neurotic, the artist has withdrawn from the unsatisfactory
reality of the world of the imagination. However, as opposed to the neurotic, the
7
artist knows how to return to this world with both feet on the ground. His crea-
tions, his works of art are the imaginary fulfilment of his unconscious desires and,
like dreams, are a kind of compromise because they too must avoid open conflict
with the powers of suppression. However, they differ from the asocial, narcissistic
products of dreams in that they consciously awaken the interests of other people and
can suppress and fulfil the same subconscious drives.
However, the artist in contrast to the neurotic, consciously creates his own fantasies
not in an attempt to satisfy his own urges but rather to satisfy the urges of others. In
other words, the artist is a  positive neurotic. The artist is a neurotic in search for
satisfaction and like the typical neurotic, attempts to escape from the bonds of real-
ity. However, unlike the neurotic, the artist returns to reality in order to complete
and perform his task publicly.
The source of the creative act should, therefore, be sought in dramatic experiences
and where there is tension. These are borne from a conflict between the suppressed
desires of the artist and the substitutive actions which have been censored by the ego
and superego.
By utilising Freud s interpretative aesthetics one can demonstrate which of the three
elements of the artist s psyche dominates in the artistic process. A dominant id is
associated with different forms of artistic expressionism; a dominant ego is associ-
ated with realism, whereas a prevailing superego leads to art which is didactic and
moralistic.
However, the question begs whether a work of art, its creation and semantic, aes-
thetic multidimensional nature can be explained in full by simply drawing on peo-
ple s urges, disorders, fears and hysteria? Freud s student and the father of analytic
psychology, Carl Gustav Jung (1875 - 1961) thought otherwise.
Like Freud, he was concerned with the source and cause of artistic creativity.
However, unlike his teacher, he expanded the scope of his investigations to encom-
pass the nature and function of symbols. These concepts drove him to the creation
of his theory of personality. He claimed that the human personality consists of three
layers: the conscious, the individual unconscious and the collective unconscious .
The first constitutes a centre for divergent elements that stem from internal and
external stimuli transmitted to us via the senses.
The second is a receptacle for all lost memories and matter that is too weak to be
made conscious. We can also find here those ideas which are unpleasant or have been
deliberately suppressed.
The third includes instincts which have no conscious motivation as well as pre-exist-
ing forms of understanding or in-born intuition, that is archetypes which determine
a priori the conditions of all experience. The content of the first two layers is ac-
quired whereas the third layer is inherited from our forefathers.
Creative action is formed within this three-fold structure of the personality. Real
visionary art is formed within the third, collective layer. In this situation, the artist
can become a medium, a participant in an event which stems from his own conscious
decision-making.
Jung believes the artist is not an individual endowed with free will, an individual
who strives towards his own goals but someone who allows art to realise its own
aims through him. According to Jung, a visionary artist becomes a  collective being
who expresses unconscious human existence. Visionary art is the unconscious anima-
tion of an archetype, its expansion and its development into a complete work. The
act of conferring a shape onto the embryonic work of art is the act of  translating it
8
into the language of modernity thanks to which everyone can, to some extent, have
access to the deepest origins of life which would otherwise remain hidden.
Archetypes are unconscious patterns of behaviour which serve also as universal pat-
terns of symbolic expression. An archetype, claims Jung, expresses itself in the iden-
tity or similarity of myths and folk tales all over the world. For example, a native
South American dreams in what may appear to be the symbols of Greek mythology
whereas a Swiss shop assistant may see the visions of a psychotic Egyptian Gnostic.
Visionary art is able to release all the redeeming forces within us which allow man-
kind to save itself in all critical situations and survive even the longest of nights.
It is obvious that not every creative product has its origins in the collective uncon-
scious. Art exists alongside visionary art, however, it stems entirely from conscious
life experiences. According to Jung, both literary works of art and didactic poetry
belong to this category. This includes (for literary works): literature about love, the
environment, family, crime and society and (for poetry) lyrical verse and drama.
Psychological art of this kind does not go beyond what is possible to describe using
the language of psychology. The essence of this art can be found in something as
simple as the diary of an artist.
Psychology, therefore, should not expect categories of art to be reduced to neurotic
pathologies or an artists sexual problems. Psychology, claimed Jung, should eradi-
cate all and any medical prejudices because a work of art is not a disease and thus
requires an entirely different, non-medical, approach.
9
5. Semiotic Aesthetics
Semiotics is the general study of sign systems which also includes language. It is tradi-
tionally divided into three disciplines: syntax which is the abstract study of signs and
the relationships between them; semantics which is concerned with the relationship
between signs and the objects to which they relate and, pragmatics which deals with
the relationship between the users of a system and the system itself like, for example,
the Polish language.
The problem of understanding different kinds of inter-personal communication is
essential to semiotic aesthetics. However, do works of art exist so that they can be
understood? Are our feelings and experiences not more important? For semiotic
aesthetics, however, understanding a work of art is an indispensable condition for us
to be able to experience it and appreciate it properly.
However, is our understanding of poetry the same as our understanding of the in-
structions of a hairdryer? Can we compare how we understand road signs to how
we understand the paintings of van Gogh? In order to demonstrate what a particu-
lar message, like a work of art, conveys (assuming that a work of art is a form of
communication), we can begin by presenting a functional approach to language as
proposed by Roman Jakobson (1896 - 1982). He maintained that language (or com-
munication) can have the following functions:
a) Referential - the message denotes an actual object e.g. This is a table.
b) Emotive - the message can effect an emotional response e.g. I love you; You idiot! etc.
c) Imperative - the message is an order e.g. Lie down! Do it!
d) Phatic - superficially the message seems to say something or seems to appeal
to the emotions, however, in reality it only serves to confirm and verify inter-
personal communication. Phatic communication encompasses phrases like listen,
good which can be uttered during a phone call. The same applies to all formulaic
expressions, greetings and the such like.
e) Metalinguistic - the focus of the message is a linguistic element e.g. The sentence
 How are you? is Phatic communication.
f) Aesthetic - the message appears to be ambiguous and self-referent i.e. it draws the
addressee s attention above all to its form.
All six above-mentioned functions can occur in one message or communicative act.
In the majority of colloquial texts, these functions can occur together even if one of
the functions predominate.
Umberto Eco (1932 - ) noted that the aesthetic message is constructed on the vague
assumptions of a system of expectations which characterises a code. Communication
which is unclear or vague leads to a variety of interpretations and can lead to  infor-
mation noise i.e. complete disarray and chaos. Ambiguity is  productive in that it
draws our attention and forces us to undertake an interpretive act. Furthermore, it
allows us to discover factors that relate to understanding. Moreover, it allows us to
find order in chaos. This order is far richer than that which is characterised by other
forms of communication.
In other words, the way in which the aesthetic message is received requires intellec-
tual effort on the part of the recipient. This is indispensable for the understanding of
the preceding aesthetic experience. The manner in which this type of communica-
10
tion is received is seen as a particular type of dialogue between the author, the work
(a text) and the recipient (the readers).
Eco claims that the understanding of the aesthetic message is, on the one hand, based
on a dialectic relationship between the rejection of the codes and lexicon of the
sender and, on the other hand, the introduction and rejections of one s own codes
and lexicon. This is therefore a dialectic relationship, between the faithfulness and
the freedom of an interpretation. Simultaneously, the addressee, on the one hand,
attempts to follow the main direction of the ambiguous message and patch up what
is unclear by using his own codes and, on the other hand, as a result of contextual
associations the addressee sees the message as it was actually constructed and thus
fulfils the act of faithfulness in the face of the author and its intentional meaning.
Within this dialectic relationship, of form with openness (at the level of message)
and faithfulness with initiative (at the level of addressee) lies the development of
every addressee s interpretive action as well as action typical of the critic which both
more precise and more inventive, as well as freer and more faithful. This interpre-
tive act proceeds from an archaeological-like reconstruction of the circumstances
in which meaning was conferred as well as the reconstruction of the sender s code;
it proceeds also from the testing of marked forms in order to check to what extent
these new codes allow for new meanings to be introduced; and finally, from the
rejection of unfounded codes that impose themselves in the interpretive process but
cannot be separated from other codes.
According to Eco, a piece of poetry, a metaphoric utterance, can be interpreted
openly and the meaning is incremental. Every work of art is  open to interpretation
to a lesser or greater extent. In other words, every work of art consists of a form
and structure which forces the recipient to undertake additional interpretations.
Therefore, even the meaning of great works of art will never be ultimately estab-
lished as new readings will always appear.
No doubt, abstract art appears to be more  open than reproductive art or art that
simply emulates or imitates nature. Similarly, the art of the Baroque is more open to
interpretation than the art of the Middle Ages, although it would be foolish to talk
of a  closed or  final work of art due to the fact that every interpretation depends
on its approach, its preparation and predisposition of the recipient.
Even an  unambiguous text created thousands of years ago can be read anew. Eco
believed that semiotic aesthetics is able to tell us what a given work of art might
become but never what it was. Eco claims that what a text has become is revealed to
us through nothing more than criticism, the simple account of what we experience
which is the interpretation of a text.
11
6. Aestheticisation
The processes broadly understood as aestheticizing the world around us are recog-
nised as universal phenomena and are regarded as typical for modern times. Without
doubt, we are witnessing an aesthetic boom in the modern world associated with
both individual style and the shaping of our surroundings. This is most evident in
our cities where in recent years practically everything (within financial constraints)
has been cosmetically changed, adjusted and improved.
It is easiest to detect aestheticisation when it is at its most superficial level. This con-
sists in adding aesthetic elements to reality or giving it an  aesthetic sheen .
According to Mike Featherstone, the postmodern individual is constantly undertak-
ing a hedonistic and quasi-artistic  carnivalisation of everyday life. Experiences
and entertainment have in recent years become guidelines for culture. Featherstone
believes the source of this aestheticisation to be Kant for whom the distinguishing
feature of an aesthetic judgement of taste is disinterestedness and all that is associ-
ated with it. An aesthetic approach is possible for everything and all objects found
in the world.
Wolfgang Welsch (1946 - ) assigns this process a more loftier role. According to
Welsch, in modern times aestheticisation does not develop merely at a superficial
level but, increasingly, reaches the deeper levels of reality. The processes taking place
within deep aestheticisation not only transform reality but create new structures
within it. Related to this fact are changes occurring, for example, in industrial pro-
duction processes where, thanks to new technology, micro-electronics or computer
3-D simulation, a product increasingly becomes something aesthetic.
Aesthetics understood in these terms belongs neither to art or entertainment; it
touches upon physicalness and, in consequence, shapes our consciousness and the
way we comprehend the world. Whether we take Welsch s view or not i.e. that the
property of being aesthetic is embedded in the primary experiences of our exist-
ence, we must nevertheless acknowledge that nowadays social reality (conveyed to
us through the media) is increasingly more open to the distancing of reality and
aestheticisation.
This is particularly noticeable within economics and advertising. Welsch believes
that many expressions of aestheticisation serve purely economic goals. By associat-
ing a product with the aesthetic we can sell the un-sellable or sell a single marketable
commodity twice or even three times. Due to the fact that aesthetic trends are par-
ticularly ephemeral, nowhere can one find such demand for novelty as in products
which are aesthetically stylised, for example, an object which is designated a rubbish
bin becomes aesthetically obsolete long before it actually becomes old and useless.
Moreover, products which have become less popular for moral or health reasons,
can easily return to favour thanks to their newly acquired aesthetic prestige. Welsch
claims that the consumer purchases, first and foremost, an aesthetic aura and then
the actual product itself. A good example of this is the tobacco industry which is
highly advanced (in an aesthetic sense). We have seen that when the advertising of
tobacco products was banned in the 1980s, tobacco companies invented new forms
of advertising which were able to tempt consumers with refined aesthetic sophistica-
tion without naming the product.
12
In commerce, the commodity is merely an appurtenance whereas the main object,
what is valuable is the aesthetics of the object. In other words, if an advertisement is
able to associate a given product with what appeals to the consumer then it will be
purchased regardless of its actual properties. Welsch claims that we are not buying
a commodity but are, in fact, buying a particular lifestyle. Due to the fact that our
lifestyle is, to a greater extent, aesthetically characterised nowadays, aesthetics as a
whole is no longer the carrier but has become the essence
Welsch claims that interpersonal contact increasingly possesses aesthetic features: in
a world with disappearing moral norms the conventions that are still in use are those
such as table manners and formulaic politeness expressions, for example, which
glass to use at the table and what to say in certain social situations.
Aestheticisation does not touch upon only material and social realities; similar phe-
nomena can be observed at the individual level. What is most important is the styli-
sation of the human body which takes place in modern beauty salons, body-building
gyms and solariums. Perhaps genetic engineering will become the next branch of
aestheticisation. We are witnessing the development of the modern homo aestheti-
cus, a human who is sensitive, educated, hedonistic, narcissistic and above all has a
refined sense of taste.
The phenomena of aestheticisation, however, cannot be reduced to a simple process
of making something superficially more beautiful. There are far greater consequenc-
es involved. According to Welsch, an aestheticized culture is sensitive to a diversity
of art as well as differences present in everyday life.
Welsch claims that modern societies are characterised by a multiplicity of changing
forms of life. They do not form a uniform group but constitute a loose network
of extremely diverse forms of life recognised by democratic government and basic
laws. In practice, it is important to perceive the logic of these forms and respect their
property and not evaluate and measure them using the same yardstick or pigeonhole
them all together. This mirrors the situation that can be found in art.
The art of the 20th century is distinguished by a multiplicity of varied paradigms.
The ready-made objects of Duchamp, claimed Welsch, cannot be interpreted in the
same way as the cubism of Picasso which cannot be compared to the suprematism of
Malewicz or the abstract art of Kandinsky.
Welsch claims that aesthetic judgements require a broad understanding as well as
the appropriate experience of these paradigms or various sets of criteria. Attempts
to judge a surrealistic piece of work in terms of constructivist criteria, or vice versa,
judging a constructivist piece of work using surrealistic criteria, or judging any piece
of work using other criteria, or all pieces of art work using only one set of criteria
would be a fundamental categorical error. Welsch claims this is simple small-mind-
edness.
A new reflexive form of aesthetic consciousness should be sensitive to richness and
pluralism. Furthermore, a sensitised aesthetic consciousness can enlighten and help
in understanding the world because tolerance is highlighted by a sensitivity to dif-
ferences.
13
Glossary
Archetype - an element of the collective unconscious which forces the individual
to behave in such a way as to be equivalent to a psychological necessity devoid of
consciousness.
Aesthetics - the discipline dealing with beauty and artistic activity.
Phatic Communication - from the Greek phatis  spoken . A message which serves only
to maintain communication (not exchange information) between two interlocutors.
Psychoanalysis - a method of analysis and a theory of personality developed by
Sigmund Freud. In classical psychoanalysis, the main driving force of human action
is the innate energy of sexual urges.
Pragmatics - a field of semiotics which is concerned with the relationship between
the users of a sign system and the signs they use.
Semantics - a field of semiotics which is concerned with the relationship between
signs and the objects to which they relate.
Semiotics - the general study of symbolic systems (this includes language).
Sublimation - a psychoanalytical term which signifies the transformation of human
urges into higher and more sublime feelings. It is attained through the suppression
of instincts and re-direction of energies stemming from these urges towards goals
which are socially acceptable and which foster culture. Sexual urges may be trans-
formed into aesthetic tendencies.
14