Is Perception the Canonical Route to Aesthetic Judgment?

Australasian Journal of Philosophy 96 (4):657-668 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

ABSTRACTIt is commonplace amongst philosophers of art to make claims that postulate important links between aesthetics and perception. In this paper, I focus on one such claim—that perception is the canonical route to aesthetic judgment. I consider a range of prima facie plausible interpretations of this claim, and argue that each fails to identify any important link between aesthetic judgment and perception. Given this, I conclude that we have good reason to be sceptical of the claim that perception is in any way privileged as a source of aesthetic judgment.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,809

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-10-05

Downloads
63 (#336,037)

6 months
11 (#338,628)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jon Robson
Nottingham University

Citations of this work

Two Dogmas of Aesthetic Empiricism.Dominic McIver Lopes - 2021 - Metaphilosophy 52 (5):583-592.
Aesthetic Testimony and Aesthetic Concepts.Andrea Sauchelli - 2024 - American Philosophical Quarterly 61 (1):59-72.
Categorizing Art.Kiyohiro Sen - 2024 - Dissertation, University of Tokyo

Add more citations

References found in this work

How to Be a Pessimist about Aesthetic Testimony.Robert Hopkins - 2011 - Journal of Philosophy 108 (3):138-157.
Aesthetic testimony: What can we learn from others about beauty and art?Aaron Meskin - 2004 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 69 (1):65–91.
The acquaintance principle.Malcolm Budd - 2003 - British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (4):386-392.
The Possibility of Aesthetic Realism.Philip Pettit - 1983 - In Eva Schaper (ed.), Pleasure, preference, and value: studies in philosophical aesthetics. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 17-38.

View all 11 references / Add more references