In this blog post, we explore whether aesthetic judgments are based on objective facts or are subjective reactions of the viewer from the perspectives of aesthetic realism and anti-realism.
One of the debates in aesthetics regarding what are considered to be aesthetic attributes, such as elegance and majesty, is whether the attributes referred to in aesthetic judgments about objects actually exist in those objects. The two main views on this are aesthetic realism and aesthetic anti-realism.
According to aesthetic realism, aesthetic attributes exist in objects. This means that when an aesthetic judgment about an aesthetic attribute is objectively true, that aesthetic attribute exists. For example, aesthetic realism holds that if everyone agrees that Beethoven’s “Fate Symphony” is majestic, then majesty is one of the actual properties of the “Fate Symphony” and we have all successfully perceived it. This view emphasizes the objectivity of aesthetic judgments and asserts that aesthetic properties are entities that can be discovered through our perception.
However, some of us may make an aesthetic judgment that Beethoven’s “Symphony No. 5” is dull. In response, aesthetic realism explains that some of us have failed to see the actual attributes of Beethoven’s “Symphony No. 5” due to perceptual problems, such as hearing impairment, or a lack of aesthetic sensitivity. Therefore, aesthetic realism attributes the reason for the inconsistency in aesthetic judgments to the perceptual limitations or differences in aesthetic sensibility of individual viewers. This stems from the belief that aesthetic judgments are based on objective facts, and it demonstrates an effort to find the basis for those judgments in objective attributes without excluding the diversity of aesthetic experiences.
On the other hand, aesthetic anti-realism does not recognize the objective existence of aesthetic properties in objects. Aesthetic judgments are not about recognizing objectively existing properties of objects, but about the subjective reactions of the viewer. The reason why aesthetic judgments about “Symphony No. 6” are consistent is that we have all formed similar aesthetic sensibilities and, as a result, reacted similarly to the music. In other words, the agreement in aesthetic judgments is due to people with similar sensibilities responding in similar ways. Aesthetic anti-realism explains that the reason for the disagreement in aesthetic judgments is that people with different aesthetic sensibilities respond differently to objects.
Despite their differences in perspective, aesthetic realism and aesthetic anti-realism agree that aesthetic judgments are statements that require justification. When asked to justify aesthetic judgments about the “Fate Symphony,” neither side can answer that there is no reason. They agree that statements about aesthetic judgments are a kind of proposition and therefore need to be supported by reasonable grounds.
Ultimately, aesthetic realism and aesthetic anti-realism provide different explanations for the nature of aesthetic experience and its evaluation, but they recognize that aesthetic judgments cannot be explained solely as subjective or objective. Each seeks to secure the validity of aesthetic judgments in its own way, which remains an important task in aesthetic discourse. Aesthetic realism emphasizes the objectivity of aesthetic properties and argues that these properties can be discovered through human perception. On the other hand, aesthetic anti-realism emphasizes the subjective nature of aesthetic experience and considers individual sensibility and experience to play a decisive role in aesthetic judgment. This debate has made an important contribution to a deeper understanding of the nature of aesthetic value and experience in aesthetics.
