Table Of ContentAesthetics and Philosophy of
ART CRITICISM
, A Critical Introduction
JEROME STOLNITZ
HERBERT H. LEHMAN COLLEGE
C:ITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY . BOSTON
~be 1aibcrsibe ~ress Q!:ambrillge
ZoRACH: Child with Cat, coLLECTION MUSEUM OF
MODERN ART, GIFT OF MR. AND MRS. SAM A. LEWISOHN
WE8TH~L QOLLEGE LIBRARY
"d"'
1 0,...,
.i i. (.
q.
;J . 13
---~
.ii;·
oo
/J+co G ·-
701· I<&' sic
Under tbe editorsbip of
LUCIUS GARVIN
MACALESTER COLLEGE
For
My Father and Mother
I RV I N G and JU L) A S T 0 L NITZ
COPYRIGHT @ 1960 BY JEROME STOLNITZ
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO
REPRODUCE THIS BOOK OR PARTS THEREOF IN ANY FORM
THE RIVERSIDE PRESS
CAMBRIDGE, M.ASSACHUSETTS
PRINTED IN THE U.S.A.
PART III The Structure of Art
Contents
9. Matter and Form 215
10. Expression 248
PART IV Three Problems tn Aesthetics
Preface Vl
3
1. The Study of Aesthetics 11. Ugliness in Art: Tragedy and Comedy 269
12. Truth and Belief in Art 303
13. Art and Morality 337
PART I The A esthetz'c Experience
29
2. The Aesthetic Attitude PART V The Evaluation of Art
65
3. The Aesthetic Experience
14. Aesthetic Experience, Evaluation, and Criticism 369
15. The Meaning and Confirmation of the Value-Judgment 388
p ART II The Nature of Art
4. The Creation of Art 87 PART VI The Criticism of Art
109
5. The "Imitation" -Theories
6. Formalism 134 16. Kinds of Criticism 441
7. Emotionalist Theory 158 17. The Educative Function of Criticism 493
8. The Theory of Aesthetic "Fineness" 191 Index 503
IV v
PREFACE
demurrers may be, I trust that I have shown that each theory has something
to say that is worth saying. It need hardly be added that I have sought to
expound and analyze these theories fairly and without bias, though whether
Preface
or, more realistically, to what extent I have succeeded,, must be left to
others to judge.
It is my earnest hope that reading this book will help to make the student's
thinking "critical" in several senses. He should be able to distinguish for
himself what is illuminating and what is flawed in the major beliefs about the
artistic and the aesthetic which vie for his allegiance at the present time.
Its subtitle, "A Critical Introduction," hits off the purpose and tone of He should be able to turn the techniques of conceptual analysis upon
this book. theories other than those treated here and to test their logical consistency
The book is addressed to students in introductory courses in aesthetics, and empirical soundness. /\!lost important of all, perhaps, he should come
philosophy of art, or philosophy of art criticism. Many students enter to develop the "critical" temper - forsaking credulity, refusing to suffer
such courses primarily because of their interest in one or more of the arts, one-sidedness or unexamined assumptions, suspending judgment where
and often with little or no previous training in philosophy. I have tried to need be. This frame of mind is especially to be prized in the study of
bear this fact in mind. The text does not presuppose familiarity with logic, aesthetics, a field in which edifying, but obscure phrases and eulogizing
the history of philosophy, or any other field of philosophy which must be dressed up as "theory" have too often taken the place of analytic clarity
drawn upon in the study of aesthetics. All references to these fields are ex and a catholic respect for fact.
plained as they occur. More important, I have, throughout, attempted to But again, most students will not devote themselves to philosophical
relate the "critical" work of philosophy to the student's own concerns. If aesthetics unless they see its bearing upon the appreciation and criticism
I have succeeded, he will feel the pertinence of bringing to light, analyzing, of concrete works of art. They will find copious, often detailed references
and assessing our foundational beliefs concerning art and the aesthetic. To to specific works both within the text and in the "Questions" which follow
this end, I have given particular attention to those concepts which, since each chapter. Reproductions of many of these works will also be found
they have great currency in aesthetic thought and discourse at the present herein. Students should, of course, be encouraged to cite, where relevant,
time, dominate the thinking of many students, e.g., "expression," which is other works with which they may be more familiar, though it is happily
nowadays even used, without qualification, as a value-term ("How ex true that they do not usually need such encouragement. This is certainly
pressive!") or the genetic-biographical interpretation of fine art. The not a book in "art appreciation," in the usual acceptation. Yet at a number
student must see for himself what is gained in clarity, consistency, and of places it challenges the student to examine his own commerce with art
insight, by examining such beliefs. There is no point in trying to teach objects, how he approaches and tries to appreciate them. I have not
philosophy if our students come to think of the study as an exercise in thought it incompatible with the primarily "critical" function of the text
futility or logic-chopping. to suggest ways in which aesthetic perception can become more discrimi
If the job of critical analysis is worth doing, then it must be done care nating and rewarding.
fully and systematically. I have tried to avoid what seems to me the beset Prefaces to textbooks frequently offer the instructor an outline for
ting sin of many elementary textbooks and courses, viz., "introducing" a organizing his course along the lines of the book. This seems to me fatuous
major problem or doctrine so cursorily that it would be unrecognizable and even faintly presumptuous. The instructor, who has his own interests
to the philosophers whose thought and interest were originally engaged and predilections, and who knows his students first-hand, can and will
by it, and then moving on to tip one's hat to another problem or "ism." decide for himself. I therefore forbear. I should, however, note that the
The reader will find in what follows, especially in the chapters on theory concept of "the aesthetic attitude" is logically central to the entire book,
of art and evaluation, detailed exposition of the major theories, much of it so that, however the course is organized, the student should read, fairly
stated in the philosopher's own words. I try to explain the forces, some early, chap. 2, secs. 1, 2, and 5, and chap. 3, sec. 1.
times historical but chiefly dialectical, which actuated the philosopher to It is also worth remarking that this text treats the issues of evaluation and
develop his views. The analysis of each theory traces out its implications art criticism at much greater length than do other texts in the field. Just these
in some detail and seeks to disclose the tensions within it. Whatever my issues are often the most interesting of all to the beginning student. A
..
Vl Vll
PREFACE
Plates
semester course in philosophy of art criticism can be based upon parts V
and VI. A semester course in aesthetics might sacrifice some of the earlier
topics to one or both of these parts of the book. The number of topics
treated in the entire book is, I believe, sufficiently great so that the instruc
tor has considerable latitude for choice.
I am glad to record my considerable indebtedness to my own students,
The following plates, with the exception of the frontispiece, are grouped
all of whom were guinea pigs and many of whom were - what is far better
together at the end of the text, following page 501.
- gadflies. I am also indebted to those who read and criticized various parts
of the manuscript: Henry D. Aiken, Frances Hamblin, Howard Merritt,
Huntington Terrell. I am especially grateful to Professor Terrell for his FRONTISPIECE ZoRACH Child with Cat
meticulously careful reading and searching criticisms. It was at the sugges PLATE 1. VAN GoGH The Yellow Chair
tion of Professor Lucius Garvin that I began work on this book; his en PLATE 2. SHAHN Handball
couragement contributed to its completion; and his criticisms of the entire
PLATE 3. GfaICAULT The Raft of the Medusa
manuscript have improved it. However, the traditional mea culpa must be
voiced at this point. PLATE 4. GRUNEWALD Crucifixion
Dorothy N. helped too. PLATE 5. PERUGINO Crucifixion
J. s. PLATE 6. CORREGGIO Jupiter and Antiope
Rochester, New York PLATE 7. SEURAT Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande
January, 1959 Jatte
PLATE 8. VAN GoGH The Starry Night
PLATE 9. CEzANNE The Quarry Called Bibemus
PLATE 10. Photograph of the same motif
PLATE 11. MoDIGLIANI Jeanne Hebuterne
PLATE 12. HARNETT After the Hunt
PLATE 13. CHALFANT After the Hunt
PLATE 14. KoLLWITZ The Parents
PLATE 15. SAINT-GAUDENS Grief
PLATE 16. HoGARTH He Revels
PLATE 17. BRANCUSI Bird in Space
PLATE 18. MoNET The Ducal Palace at Venice
PLATE 19. C:E:zANNE The Card Players
PLATE 20. PICASSO Les Demoiselles d'Avignon
PLATE 21. MoNDRIAN Composition in White, Black, and Red
PLATE 22. MooRE Reclining Figure
PLATE 23. GIOTTO Death of St. Francis
PLATE 24. GoYA Accident in the Arena at Madrid
PLATE 25. MoHOLY-NAGY Composition
PLATE 26. PICASSO Glass of Beer
PLATE 27. TITIAN Allegory of Prudence
Vlll
Aesthetics and
Philosophy of
Art Criticism
I
~
Study of Aesthetics
1. PHILOSOPHY - THE CRITICISM
OF OUR BELIEFS
If I had to choose one single word to describe the function and "spirit"
of philosophy, it would be critical. But the meaning of this word should
not be misunderstood. In everyday speech it usually has a narrower mean
ing than the one I have in mind. When we say, in everyday discourse,
that we are "critical of that person," we generally mean that we find fault
with him. Philosophy is not "critical" in this sense. It is not peevish fault
finding; it is not "always belittlin'," like the bad-tempered people whom
all of us know.
Rather, philosophy is "critical" in a broader sense. In this sense, it
examines something in order to determine its strengths and weaknesses.
On this meaning, critical inquiry is concerned with the virtues as well as
the faults of what it studies. Now, wbat does philosophy study critically?
It is not as easy to answer this question as might be thought. It can be said,
however, that philosophy criticizes some of the most important and wide
spread beliefs held by human beings. An example would be the belief
that God exists. Another example would be the belief that there are certain
acts, such as keeping promises or being loyal to one's country, which we
ourrht to perform, and others, such as telling lies or cheating on examina
tions, which are morally wrong. Still another·· example is the belief in
3
THE STUDY OF AESTHETICS THE STUDY OF AESTHETICS
certain goals or "values" of human existence for which we .should strive, to say, you will find that you have not "come by" these beliefs as a result
e.g., getting as much pleasure as we can, or, at the opposite pole, self of prolonged and serious thinking about them. Rather, you have accepted
sacrificing Christian love. them on the strength of some authority, i.e., some individual or institution
I have described the beliefs which philosophy criticizes as being both which urged these beliefs upon you. The authority might be your par
"important and widespread." It will b.e obvious from the examp~es th~t ents, your teachers, your church, or your friends. Many of our beliefs are
such beliefs are indeed widespread. Virtually all adult human bemgs, m taken over from what we vaguely call "society" or "public opinion." These
whatever culture or historical period they have lived, have held a belief of authorities have not, as a general rule, forced their convictions upon you.
one kind or another concerning each of these issues. If the student will Rather, you have assimilated these beliefs from the "climate of opinion"
take a moment to think about it, he will find that this is true of himself as in which you have developed. Thus most of your beliefs concerning such
well, however vague or unsure his beliefs may be. questions as the existence of God or whether it is ever right to tell a lie,
But we cannot understand the importance of the beliefs studied by are intellectual "hand-me-downs."
philosophy until we consider the significance of beliefs in general. Beliefs But this does not mean, of course, that these beliefs are necessarily false
are not so many items on the shelves of our intellectual stockrooms, gener or unsound. They may perfectly well be true. "Hand-me-downs" some
ally unused, but occasionally dusted off and taken out - for a "bull session," times wear very well. The point is, rather, this: a belief is not true simply
for example. They are far more important than that. For they control because some authority says that it is. Suppose I were to ask you about a
and direct the course of our lives. We are always acting in the light of our certain belief, "How do you know that that is true?" It would certainly
beliefs. What we take to be true about the world and about ourselves is not be a satisfactory answer to say, "Because I was told so by my parents
crucial to our decision to perform one act rather than another, to pursue (teachers, friends, etc.)." This in itself does not guarantee the truth of the
some goal rather than its alternative. Your beliefs about yourself determine belief, because such authorities have frequently been wrong. Much that
your choice of a field of concentration in college; your beliefs about others our forefathers believed about medicine and transmitted to later genera
determine your choice of a date for. the school -dance. tions has been shown to be false. And since the very first schools, students
Hence a great deal hinges on the soundness of our beliefs. Action will have - thank Heaven - found errors in what their teachers were saying
not generally be rewarding and successful unless it is based on reliable and have tried to work out sounder beliefs for themselves. In other words,
beliefs. Action which lacks the enlightenment of true belief is bound to the truth of a belief must rest upon its own merits. If your parents taught
be erratic and futile. It is the product of superstition, "hunch," or you -that it is disastrous to overindulge in green apples, then their assertion
inertia. is true not because they said so, but because certain (highly unpleasant)
The beliefs studied by philosophy are those which underlie our behavior facts show that it is true. If you accept a "law" of science which you have
in the central areas of human experience. In the case of ethics, philosophy read in a textbook, it ought to be accepted, not because it was written in ;-[
is not so much concerned with a specific moral decision - Shall I tell a textbook, but because it rests upon experimental evidence and mathematical
lie to make a profit in this business transaction? - as with the principles of reasoning. We are justified in holding a belief only when it is supported by
right and wrong upon which the decision is -based. A man whose moral evidence and sound logic. But, as I have been urging, most of us never
principles are unsound will act in a shabby and reprehensible way. The test our beliefs in this way.
situation is similar in the area of experience with which we shall be con Here is where the "critical" activity of philosophy comes in. Philosophy
cerned - the creation and appreciation of art. Our enjoyment of art - if refuses to accept any belief which is not shown to be true by evidence
we have any - depends upon our beliefs concerning its nature and value. and reasoning. A belief which cannot be established in this way is un
Here again, as we shall later see in detail, faulty beliefs lead to profitless worthy of our intellectual allegiance and is usually a hazardous guide to
behavior. action. Philosophy dedicates itself, therefore, to the searching examina.:.
tion of beliefs which we have accepted uncritically from various authori
Now WHAT DOES IT iVIEAN, specifically, to say that philosophy is "critical" ties. We must rid ourselves of the prejudices and emotions which often
of our beliefs? To begin with, let us admit that most of our beliefs con becloud our beliefs. Philosophy will not permit any belief to pass inspec
cerning such vital issues as religion and morality are conspicuously un tion merely because it has been enshrined by tradition or because people ·
critical. Stop again to consider your own beliefs in these matters, asking find it emotionally satisfying to hold the belief. Philosophy will not accept -1'
yourself why you .have come to hold these beliefs._I n most cases, it is safe a belief simply because it is thought to be "plain common sense" nor be- _
4 5
THE STUDY OF AESTHETICS THE STUDY OF AESTHETICS
~ause it has been proclaimed. by wis~ men. Phil?sophy,. tries to take ?oth- ) forth in a systematic and orderly way. We may also learn something else
mg "for granted" or "on faith." It 1s devoted to persistent, open-mmded about our beliefs which is more discouraging. And that is, not only do we
inquiry, in . order to learn whether, and to -;,hat ·extent, ·our beliefs -are·. have different beliefs about the same question, but these beliefs sometimes
justified. In this way, philosophy keeps us from sinking into the mental contradict each other. We hold two beliefs which are logically opposed to
complacency aud dogma~isfil to which all human beings are prone. each other, in the sense that if one of them is true, the other cannot pos
sibly be true. Thus a person may hold that anyone's opinion of the value
r
AESTHETICS, or as it is sometimes called, philosophy of art, is a branch of of a work of art is as good as that of anybody else; yet, at another time he
philosophy. Hence, what has been said of philosophy in general is true of withdraws his own opinion in favor of the verdict of an "expert" or a
aesthetics a:s well. Aesthetics undertakes to examine critically our beliefs professional critic, because he considers the latter especially qualified to
concerning such questions as these: What is the nature of "fine art"? What pass judgment on art. This kind of self-contradiction is not especially
distinguishes the creative artist from the nonartist? What sort of experi surprising either, for "common sense" is full of such contradictions. They
ence is the "appreciation" of art? Why is this experience a valuable one? go unnoticed for the most part, precisely because what we call "commo~
Can we settle disagreement concerning art, as when A says that jazz is sense" never stops to take stock of its beliefs. To point out these logical
"imaginative" and "exciting," and B says that it is "barbaric" and "nothing inconsistencies, and to overcome them, is a further task of "critical"
but noise"; or when you and a friend disagree about the merits of some philosophy. Finally, aesthetics submits our beliefs to the acid test of evi
particular artist, such as Tchaikovsky? What does it mean to say that a dence, to determine whether they are suppo11:ed by fact: In view of th~
person has "good taste," or "better taste" than somebody else? Does it vagueness, diversity, and inconsistency of our beliefs, the student will begin
mean anything at all? What is the function ·of the critic? Is censorship of to see that it is no trivially easy job to be "critical" of them.
art ever justified? If so, under what circumstances? What is the importance
of art in human experience?
These questions illustrate the kind of problem which we shall be study 2. WHY SHOULD YVE STUDY AESTHETICS?
ing. There is no need to try to tie them into any neat "definition" of
"aesthetics," even if that were possible. Any such would-be definition Before we proceed, however, there is a prior question which demands
would have little meaning or value for the student at this point. Later in attention. I have been saying that philosophy is incessantly "critical." But
this chapter the student will find a more systematic statement of the chief. if that is so, must not philosophy be critical of itself also? Indeed, through
problems in aesthetics and the ~ays in which they are related to each · out the history of philosophy, philosophers have asked searching ques
'"·other. There is, hmvever, no way to learn what aesthetics is about except tions about their 9bjectives and methods, and about the value of engaging
by seeing how it criticizes our beliefs concerning these questions. in philosophy. Let us also be "critical" from the v-ery beginning and ask.
But what exactly are our beliefs on these issues? Even if the student can "Why should we study aesthetics?" Are there any good reasons why
give an answer to each of the above questions, can he state clearly what he students should be concerned about such questions as those listed earlier?
means by it? Like our beliefs in ethics and religion, these beliefs are gen-. We would like to think that there are reasons for doing so which are
erally un-critical. Because we have not usually reflected upon them. before better than those of the undergraduate in the old and cynical story, who
accepting them, they are vague and largely inarticulate. Therefore, we chose his courses for the year with no regard for subject matter, but
must clarify what we mean when we use such terms as "art," "beautiful," solely on the principle that none of them met before ten o'clock or above
and "good taste." This is an indispensable step in being "critical" of our the second floor.
beliefs. For we cannot adduce evidence for and against our beliefs until we Probably the best way to meet this question is to consider certain argu
know just exactly what it is that we believe. ments which try to show that we should not study aesthetics. As we shall
Once we have spelled out our beliefs with some clarity, we may find see, these arguments attempt to prove that the study of aesthetics is
that we believe not one, but several different things, about most or all of superfluous or futile or even harmful. We must certainly try to answer
the above questions. We may be somewhat appalled by this, but it is not these arguments successfully, if we can. No one, probably, expects that,
especially surprising. Most people's beliefs about these issues are an ill if we fail to find the answers, we will close up shop before we have even
assorted collection of-catch phrases, undeveloped ideas, and emotions pa begun our study. But this does not minimize these arguments, some of
rading as ideas. It is part of the job of critical inquiry to set these which are very strong indeed. Even if they do not prove their case, they
6 7
THE STUDY OF AESTHETICS
THE STUDY OF AESTHETICS
are instructive because they keep us from falling into serious errors in our
To these basic questions, the psychologist or the sociologist as such
thinking about aesthetics. They help us to get clear about the purpose of
does not return an answer. He will frequently presuppose the value of
studying aesthetics and the methods we must use in doing so.
works of art in his research. Thus a psychologist may examine the reac
What, then, are the arguments against studying aesthetics?
tions of a large number of people to both "good" and "bad" art. Or the
sociologist may say that a certain culture produced "great" art because
ARGUMENT I. Other fields of study - such as psychology, sociology, art of the organization of its society. But the meaning of "good" or "great"
history, and the analysis of art techniques - can answer ~JI of our ques as applied to art, is not examined. The job of analyzing meaning is left to
tions concerning art. This is the argument that there 1s no need for
the aesthetician. Furthermore, psychology and sociology do not survey the
aesthetics, because what we know about art comes, not from philosophy,
knowledge gained by all approaches to art, including their own, art his
but from other fields. Thus, to find out what goes on in the experience of
tory, art criticism, etc. Aesthetics does just this, in order to gain a well
appreciating art, we turn to the psychologist. For he is spec'.ally quali?ed
r?unded an.cl ~nclusive knowledge of art, as a basis for answering the ques
to analyze and explain the psychological states of perception, emotion,
tions of ar~1stic value. Therefore, aesthetics differs from these other studies
imaaination, etc., which make up the experience. Similarly, if we want to
because it comes to grips with the problems of value and because it draws
und~rstand the psychological make-up of the creative artist, and how he
comprehensively upon all of the specialized fields of research into art.
differs from human beings who are not artists, then psychology alone can
Yet it might be argued, in rebuttal, that the psychologist ca1i settle such
help us. The origins of art in society, its interrel~tions wi~h o~he~ social questions. For whether a work of art is good or bad depends upon the
institutions such as religion, economics, and morality, and its significance
kind of experience which a person has while looking at it. To take an
in human culture are explained by sociology and anthropology. To trace
elementary example for purposes of discussion, let us say that a work is
1
the evolution of artistic "styles" and periods, e.g., Romanticism, and the
"valuable" only if it arouses intense emotion. (The example is not e~
development of artistic "forms," such as the novel, is the task of the his
ti.rely hypot?e~ical, for there are many people who seem to hold just this
torians of each of the arts. Only those who are skilled in the particular arts
vie~.) If this is so, then we must turn to the psychologist to learn whether
can explain such things as harmony in music, or the workings of such de
a gwen work has this effect. People are frequently confused a11d unreli
vices as metaphor in literature. If we want interpretations and analyses of
1 able in. describing their own "inner" experiences. The psychologist can
particular works of art, so that we may appre.ciate them more fully, ~e determme whether and to what extent emotional excitation has occurred
consult critics in each of the arts or the artists themselves. The chief
why it was brought about by this particular work of art, and so on. '
sources of our knowledge of art have now been listed. In view of the
Now does this show that psychology can explain the value of art? Only
overwhelming amount of information which they provide us, the argu
on one condition, but that one is crucial: only if it can be shown that the
ment runs, the study of aesthetics is superfluous and unnecessary.
arousal of intense emotion is, indeed, what makes art valuable. But this
How, if at all, can this argument be answered? In the first place, it is
can never be established by means of psychology alone. Any such defini
obvious that we have gained most of what we know about art from these
tion of artistic "value" in terms of psychological responses to art might be
fields of study. Aesthetics would be bankrupt from the start if it denied
and often has been challenged. Those who oppose such a view believe
this and tried to set itself up as a substitute for these other studies. How
that the value of art does not depend upon the response which it arouses in
ever, the conclusion of the argument - that aesthetics can add nothing -
human beings. They hold that its value is inherent in art. Therefore they
does not follow from this. For, as the following discussion will attempt to
consider it a grotesque mistake to identify artistic value with the "twitches;,
show, the other studies leave untouched certain crucial questions about
and "tingles" which some human beings feel. Now we do not have to
art.
settle this conflict of opinions at the present time. We shall discuss the
issue at some length later on. At this time the point is that psycholoay
OF THE VARIOUS FIELDS mentioned above, it is noteworthy that none of them
cannot itself resolve this disagreement. By contrast, aesthetics tries to ;et
considers explicitly a question which is central to the study of art - why
forth precisely the theories which have here been stated loosely, to think
is fine art valuable? The belief that art ranks high among the "good things
through their implications, and to determine their strengths and weak
of life" is almost universal. There are even those who hold that art is nesses.
the most valuable achievement in human experience. Aesthetics is "criti- '
O~her specialized studies of art, such as sociology and history, also fail to
cal" of these beliefs: Is art really so admirable and worth while as we
elucidate its valu<:_: They are concerned with the importance of works of
generally think? If so, what constitutes the value of art? ~=-', 1 Here and elsewhere, this word is used in place of "work of art."
8
9
