Aesthetics (from the Greek αἰσθάνομαι – to feel; αίσθητικός – perceived by feelings) is the science of the non-utilitarian contemplative or creative attitude of man to reality, studying the specific experience of its mastering, in the process (and as a result) of which the person feels, feels, experiences in the states of the spiritually- sensual euphoria, ecstasy, indescribable joy, bliss, catharsis, ecstasy, spiritual pleasure, its organic involvement in the Universum in the unity of its spiritual and material foundations, its essential inseparability with him, and often more specifically – with his spiritual root cause, for believers – with God. The term “aesthetics” is used in modern scientific literature and everyday life and in another sense – to denote the aesthetic component of culture and its aesthetic components. In this sense, they speak of the aesthetics of behavior, of one or another activity, sport, church rite, military ritual, an object, etc. The main categories of aesthetics: aesthetic, beautiful, sublime, tragic, comic, ugly, art.

The aesthetic experience inherent in a person since ancient times has received its initial expression in the protoesthetic practice of an archaic person – in the first attempts to create those phenomena that today belong to the sphere of art, to decorate their lives, objects of utilitarian consumption, etc. In the future, aesthetic experience and aesthetic consciousness most fully embodied in art, cult practices. Already in Ancient India, Ancient China, Ancient Greece began to appear special treatises on art and philosophical texts, where aesthetic problems were raised to the level of theoretical comprehension. The concept of the emergence of the cosmos (Greek κόσμος means, apart from the universe, ornamentation, beauty, orderliness) from chaos, attempts to comprehend and describe beauty, harmony, order, rhythm, imitation in the art (mimesis) have become the first stage in the reflection of aesthetic consciousness. It is quite natural that aesthetics as a science raises its history precisely to these experiences of ancient thought. The basic terminology and the main concepts of aesthetics in the European-Mediterranean area were formed in Ancient Greece. These include terms and concepts such as “beauty,” “beautiful,” “sublime,” “tragedy,” “comedy,” “catharsis,” “harmony,” “order,” “art,” “rhythm,” ” poetics “,” eloquence “,” music “(as a theoretical discipline),” kalokagathia”, “canon “,” mimesis “,” symbol “,” image “,” sign “.

Historically, in the center of aesthetics, there have always been two main problems: the aesthetic itself, which was most often understood in terms of beauty, beauty, sublime, and art, understood in Antiquity in a broader sense than the new European art category (French beaux-arts, German schöne Künste, “Fine arts” – from the 18th century). Aesthetics as a philosophy of art and beauty – the traditional cliches of classical aesthetics, dating back to Antiquity. From the texts of ancient Greek philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Plotinus) and theorists of various arts (eloquence, music, architecture) it follows that the problem of beauty was solved, as a rule, in the ontological sphere and directly related to cosmology. In the theories of the arts, the notion of mimesis (imitation) in all its modifications has come to the forefront – from the illusionist copying of the forms of visible reality (especially in painting – Zeuxidus, Apelles, Euphranor) to “imitation” of the ideas and eidos of the noetic world. Art practice implicitly worked out the principle of anthropic plasticity as the basis of aesthetic consciousness, extending to the whole universe. The ancient cosmos and the world of ideas are plastic, which opens the possibility of a specifically sensual expression, i.e. a purely aesthetic experience.

Two main ways of the historical existence of aesthetics can be distinguished: explicit and implicit. The first is the philosophical discipline proper aesthetics, self-determined in a relatively independent part of philosophy only by the middle of the 18th century. Implicit aesthetics are rooted in antiquity and represent a semi-theoretical free comprehension of aesthetic experience within other disciplines (in philosophy, rhetoric, philology, theology).

Implicit aesthetics

Three main periods can be distinguished in its development: proto-scientific (until the middle of the 18th century), classical, coinciding with the heyday of classical philosophical aesthetics (mid-18th-19th centuries), and postclassical (from Nietzsche to the present).

In the European area, proto-scientific aesthetics produced the most significant results in Greco-Roman antiquity, in the Middle Ages, in the Renaissance, within such artistic and aesthetic directions as classicism and baroque. In the classical period, implicit aesthetics developed particularly fruitfully in the directions of romanticism, realism and symbolism. Beginning with Nietzsche postclassical period, the basis of which was the reassessment of all cultural values, pushed back the theoretical aesthetics (explicitly) to the background, to the level of school discipline. Aesthetic knowledge in the 20th century was most actively developed within other sciences (philosophy, philology, linguistics, psychology, sociology, art criticism).

Plato first brought out the concept of τό καλόν (beautiful both in the physical and moral sense) to the level of some abstract principle, indicating at the same time the path to moral and spiritual perfection of man, mediating between the subject and the “higher good”. For the Stoics (Zeno) τό καλόν, being the highest ethical ideal, has a strong aesthetic coloration, on which a special emphasis is placed in the proof of the existence of the gods (Cleanthes), in substantiating the natural grounds of morality (Panetius). Aristotle (“On the Poetic, 360-365 BC) saw the meaning of art in mimesis (imitation), but unlike Plato, who blamed precisely for this art as” imitation of imitation, “believed that the poetic mimesis is not oriented so much for thoughtless copying of reality, as for her “believable” image in a probabilistic mode. The meaning of art mimezis Aristotle saw in the act of skillful imitation: “… what we dislike to look at [in reality], then we look with pleasure in the most accurate images, for example, the images of the most vile animals and corpses.” Here were laid the foundations of the later aesthetics and aesthetization of the ugly, which received a powerful embodiment in some areas of 20th century art. The main purpose of mimetic art (tragedy, in particular) Aristotle saw in catharsis (“purification from affects”) – a kind of psychotherapeutic function of art. In ancient treatises on music, much attention was paid to the musical “ethos” – the directed effect of the corresponding musical modes on the psyche of listeners. “Rhetoric” developed rules for appropriate verbal impact. Among these texts, the special treatise “On the Sublime” occupies a special place, in which a special type of oratorical speech is analyzed and for the first time, the concept of the sublime (τό ὓψος) is introduced as an aesthetic category. Plotinus, by the emanation theory of the universe, developed a clear hierarchical system of levels of beauty – from the transcendent (the One) through the noumenal to the material; in the expression of the beautiful (of all levels), he saw one of the main tasks of art.

With the advent of Christianity, a new stage of implicit aesthetics begins. The first fathers of the Church (Clement of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine) comprehend the Universe as a beautiful creation of the God-Artist; the man who was created “in the image and likeness” of God is declared the apex and the goal of divine creativity. According to the patristic concept (see Patristic), God is transcendent, and the Universum is a system of symbols, signs (signs) pointing to God and the spiritual realm of being. Hence the all-embracing symbolism of Christian art and the special interest of the Church Fathers (especially the Byzantines) to the problems of the image, symbol, sign, image, icon. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite wrote a treatise “Symbolic Theology” and focuses attention on this topic, which became the foundation of medieval aesthetics, in other writings. Symbols, among which prominently occupy verbal images (both “similar” and “dissimilar” with the archetype – “unimaginable similarity”) and beauty in all its manifestations, serve to build a person to God. An important role in this process is also played by the act of personal “likening”, imitation of the Absolute (“aesthetics of asceticism”). The transfer of higher knowledge from the top down is accomplished through “light-passing”, light insights of different levels of materialization, in the perception of which the subject experiences spiritual pleasure. Augustine examines in detail the theory of sign and meaning, the problems of emotional-aesthetic anagogical (erecting) effects of the arts (musical and verbal) on man. Anticipating Kant, he (in the treatise “On free choice”) asks about the source of aesthetic judgments, about the a priori nature of aesthetic experience. Awareness of the impossibility of the logical substantiation of aesthetic judgments leads Augustine to the conclusion about their divine origin.

Byzantine icon-worshipers (8-9 centuries, John Damascene, Theodore Studit, Patriarch Nikifor, etc.) elaborate the theory of the icon, realized as the most important sacral and artistic phenomenon of Orthodox culture. The icon was understood as the image of the ideal visible appearance (“internal Eidos”, in Plotinus terminology) of the prototype, endowed with its energy. Specially Orthodox directions of implicit aesthetics were formed in Byzantium – the “aesthetics of asceticism”, oriented toward inner spiritual experience and the spiritual and physical transformation of the subject itself, and “liturgical aesthetics” associated with church worship. In the process of artistic practice, such principles of organizing a work of art as antinomism, paradox, canonicality, symbolism, which in the Orthodox aesthetics were comprehended and theoretically worked out as aesthetic principles only in the first half of the 20th century, came to the forefront. Byzantine thinkers comprehended the beautiful visible world as a symbol of divine beauty and an indicator of the degree of beingness of the corresponding phenomena. Particular attention was paid to light (both physical and spiritual) as one of the main modifications of the beautiful.

Western European medieval aesthetics (especially in the period of scholasticism) paid special attention to harmonizing the principles and categories of ancient aesthetics with Christian doctrine, actively relying on the experience of such fathers of the Church as Areopagite and Augustine. Franciscan Bonaventure, based on Augustine’s statement about the “beauty/form of Christ” (species Christi), creates a whole “Christological aesthetics” (in the 20th century, elaborated by G. Urs von Baltasar). According to Bonaventure, Christ’s “beauty” (form) is the mediator between the transcendent God and man through the embodied Son, in which the principles of “image and likeness”, directly related to the concept of “form,” are concentrated. Aesthetically perceiving the reality in which the divine beauty is poured, we can approach the comprehension of the concept of beauty-form-similarity in general and the essence of the Son, and through him and the Father. Thomas Aquinas summed up the western medieval aesthetics. In his understanding of beauty and art, he synthesized the views of the Neoplatonists, Augustine, Areopagite and representatives of early scholasticism by the Aristotelian philosophical methodology. In contrast to Byzantine aesthetics, Thomas moved the accent from spiritual beauty to sensually perceived, natural beauty, appreciating it in itself, and not only as a symbol of divine beauty. According to Thomas, a thing is beautiful only when its nature expresses its nature, essence, or “form” (in the Aristotelian sense) in its outward appearance. He defined beauty (pulchritudo) through the totality of its objective and subjective characteristics. To the first he attributed “the proper proportion, or consonance,” “clarity” and “perfection.” Under the proportio (consonantia), Thomas first of all understood the qualitative relationships of the spiritual and the material, the internal and external, the idea and the form that expresses it; under clarity (claritas) was meant as a visible radiance, a shine of a thing, so is the inner and spiritual radiance; perfection (perfectio) meant no flaws. The subjective aspects of the beautiful Thomas saw in its correlation with the cognitive ability, which is realized in the act of contemplation, accompanied by spiritual pleasure. “The beautiful is called something, the very perception of which gives pleasure” (Summa theol. I, II 27, 1). It differs from the good (good) that constitutes the purpose and meaning of human life, that which is the object of pleasure. Under the art of Foma, following the ancient aesthetics, he understood any skilful activity. Art, in his opinion, imitates nature in the sense that, like nature, has as its goal a certain final result; it does not create fundamentally new forms, but only reproduces or transforms the already existing “for nothing else than for the beautiful.” The art of speech, painting and sculpture, which Aquinas called “reproducing”, serve for profit and pleasure; The theater, instrumental music, and partly poetry are just for fun. Unlike the early Christian thinkers, Thomas recognized the right of these arts to exist if they organically join the general “harmony of life”. In his way, reinterpreting Aristotle’s idea of ​​depicting the ugly, Thomas drew attention to the idealizer’s function of art: “The image is called beautiful if it represents a perfect thing, which in reality is ugly” (I 39, 8).

If for an antique aesthetics in general, the cosmo-anthropic principle was characteristic, and the theodropic principle for the medieval one, then, from the Renaissance in the implicit aesthetics, the tendencies of anthropocentrism begin to prevail. At the theoretical level, the principles of Neoplatonic aesthetics and the theory of various types of art are being actively developed. The process of cultural secularization that began with the late Renaissance found its expression in the artistic and aesthetic sphere. Art and aesthetics are guided by the idealized and mythologized Greco-Roman (mostly in the Latin version) Antiquity. The principle of idealization is transformed into a characteristic feature of artistic and aesthetic creativity and its theoretical comprehension, including in the understanding of mimesis. Since the Renaissance, there are two main trends in the Euro-American aesthetic culture:

  1. normative-rational (classicism, enlightenment, academism, realism, technocentrism), gravitating towards materialism, positivism, pragmatism, scientific and technical utilitarianism; and
  2. irrational-spiritual (baroque, romanticism, symbolism), which focuses on the expression in the creative work of the spiritual Absolute and the spiritual cosmos.

Without going beyond the framework of an integral multifaceted Christian culture, the first line goes back to the idealized Antiquity, the second line to the idealized Middle Ages. At the same time, the Renaissance and classicism emphasized the ideal created world, as if it actually corresponded to the Creator’s plan (ideal bodies, relationships, landscapes), realism and technocentrism focused on the real state of the material world, while baroque, romanticism, symbolism directed their creative intuition in purely spiritual worlds, viewing visible reality as a symbol of the path to them.

The aesthetics of classicism (from Latin classicus – exemplary, the term introduced by romantics in the 19th century in the struggle against the classicists) is a sample of a refined strictly normative system of artistic rules that pays particular attention to the aesthetic essence of art. It began to take shape in Italy in the 16th century and reached its apogee in the 17th century in France along the lines of Cartesian rationalism. Among the main theoreticians are J.Shaplen, P.Kornel (“Discourses on Dramatic Poetry” and other texts), F. d’Obignac (“The Practice of the Theater”), N.Bualo (“Poetic Art”) and others. The “poetics” of Aristotle and the “Science of Poetry” of Horace and their numerous Italian commentaries of the 16th century, as well as examples of ancient art and literature, theorists of classicism, attempted to develop a system of rules (a kind of ideal poetics or aesthetics). It was based on the ancient principles of beauty, harmony, sublime, tragic. The classicists paid special attention to the dramatic arts as the main thing in their understanding. One of the essential principles of classicism was the Aristotelian category “likelihood”, understood as the creation of generalized, idealized and allegorized images of significant events in the edifying and didactic plane of the life of the legendary individuals or episodes of ancient mythology. “This does not mean that the real and possible are being cast out of the theater; but they are accepted there insofar as they are plausible, and in order to introduce them into a theatrical play, one has to omit or change circumstances that do not possess the plausibility and communicate it to everything that needs to be portrayed. ” The classics demanded clarity from the artist, the depth and nobility of the design of the work and precisely verified highly artistic form of expression: “But we who respect the laws respect, // Only the skillful captivates the creation.” The principle of artistic idealization can turn everything into beauty: “We are the artist’s brush is a transformation//Objects of abominable objects of admiration.” However, in general, the classicists were against the image in the art of low and ugly objects, prescribing one of the most aristocratic pages in the history of aesthetics. The aesthetics of classicism developed the theory of the hierarchy of art genres, dividing them into high and low and giving preference to the first, introduced strict requirements to artists and aesthetic “dogmas”: the drama must be subordinated to the rule of “three oneness” (place, time and action); beauty, as an idealized reality, is an expression of artistic truth; the rules of “good taste” – the guarantee of the quality of the work; art is oriented towards the assertion of high moral ideals, morally at its core, and this is useful for society; the ideal for imitation in art should be classical Antiquity, etc. Developing the anthropocentrism of the Renaissance, the aesthetics of classicism claimed the ideal of a “free, harmoniously developed person”. In the classical theory of the fine arts, II Winkelman became particularly famous; he advanced the principles of idealizing and imitating the ancient models as the main ones for true art (“Thoughts on the imitation of Greek works in painting and sculpture”, 1755). In the controversy with Winckelmann and classical aesthetics, he laid the foundations for the aesthetics of educational realism, GE Lessing, which gave impetus to a new direction in the development of aesthetic thought (Laocoon: On the Limits of Painting and Poetry, 1766, Hamburg Dramaturgy, 1767-69).

The main of the classic artistic and aesthetic principles, somehow modifying, belong to the entire normative-rationalistic direction. Academism learns from them purely formal; The Enlightenment, on the contrary, renounces formal normativization but develops rational-humanitarian, didactic, partly anti-clerical and materialistic tendencies, and abstract democracy opposes the classicism aristocracy. Particular attention is paid to the search for objective grounds for beauty, harmony, and taste; the connection of ethical and aesthetic principles, ethical and aesthetic education (Schiller, F. On the aesthetic education of man, 1795). Realism and naturalism of the 19th century bring to completion the mimetic principle – the mapping (or copying) of only visible reality in its forms. The aestheticism of the late 19th century turns the aesthetic component of art into an end in itself, the only value. The aesthetics of totalitarian regimes (the USSR of the Stalin period, Hitler’s Germany) is returning in the party-engagement mode to the principles of idealization and normativism, leading them to absurdity and self-denial. Art is understood only as a means of ideological propaganda and manipulation of public consciousness.

The irrational-spiritual direction of implicit aesthetics develops as an opposition to the unnecessarily rationalized aspects of the aesthetics of the Renaissance, classicism, Enlightenment, technicalism. For baroque aesthetics (flourishing in the 17th and 18th centuries, the term was introduced at the end of the 19th century, Italian Barocco is a bizarre, pretentious one) characterized by intense dynamism, expressiveness, drama, ease and freedom of spiritual aspirations, often exaltation, complexity of the artistic form, aesthetic excesses and abstract overloaded decorativeness, complete absence of any normativization, the maximum concentration of emotional intensity, the use of the effects of surprise, contrast, etc. In opposition to classicism, baroque theorists, relying on Descartes’ treatise The Passions of the Soul (1649), developed, with reference to art, the theory of affectation and passions; they systematically studied the possibilities of means of artistic and emotional expression, the visual-symbolic potencies of the emblem and mask, the artistic methods of stirring up religious reverence, poetic surprise, feelings of exaltation, fear, etc.

Aesthetics of romanticism was a kind of reaction to classicism and enlightenment. His main theoreticians and practitioners (the brothers Schlegel, Schelling, Novalis, Schleiermacher, J.P. Richter, ETAhoffman) creatively developed the Christian ideas of creativity and symbolism, the emanation aesthetics of the Neoplatonists, comprehending nature as a symbolic work of art, act the activity of the absolute Spirit, the “expiration of the Absolute” (Schelling), whose “cryptography” is revealed in nature and (through the artist-mediator) in works of art. Romantics blur the line between life, philosophy, religion, art, comprehending the latter as one of the essential paradigms of cosmo-socio-anthropo-being. According to Schelling, the Universum is educated in God as an eternal beauty and an absolute work of art, therefore in the man-made art the truth manifests itself in a complete form than in philosophy. An ideal work of art removes the veil from divine secrets. In art, the innermost foundations of being are expressed most fully and integrally (in the process of contemplation, artistic insight, revelation, through spiritual intuition). It is the foundation of religion, philosophy, and all sciences. Schleiermacher argued, in particular, that the experience of Romanticism is a new religious experience, by which the unity of the soul with the Universe must be realized. Novalis was convinced that the artist was called upon to become a “priest and mystic of a new faith” to cleanse, with the help of poetry, the souls of people, nature, land for a new ideal sublime life. In the aesthetics of romantics, the artistic image is a unique phenomenon, which is a unity of form and content that can not be separated, do not exist separately. In artistic creation, according to romantic ideas, meaningful thinking is not rational, but experience, not reason, but intuition, not so much a result as the very process of creativity (or perception). The aesthetics of romanticism emphasized the potential creative possibilities of nature, the spirit of the artist; on the intuition of chaos as an unlimited accumulation of creative potencies of being and the artist; on the principle of life ascending to Schiller in all its manifestations; on the pervading nature and true art of the spirit of the sublime. Romantics often consciously used in the art of irony, grotesque, sarcasm. Contrary to the orthodox Christian doctrine, they understood evil as an objective reality inherent in the cosmos (“world evil”) and human nature, hence the tragedy of being in the late romantics. For the aesthetics of Romanticism, a cult of the infinite, sublime spirituality, heightened lyricism, the desire to mix reality with folklore fairy-tale, fantasy, wonderful is characteristic. Music and musicality are paradigms for all arts in the aesthetics of romanticism. It goes back and the idea of ​​a unique synthesis of the arts – Gesamtkunstwerk.

S. Kierkegaard, developing a romantic tradition, brings aesthetics to the existential level. Aesthetics for him is not an abstract theory, but a way of human life. He reveals two antinomically conjugated “beginnings of life”, the two main forms of existence are aesthetic and ethical (“Or-Or,” 1843). Moreover, the aesthetic, the principle of which is hedonism – the enjoyment of life (and in it – the beauty) in all its aspects, seemed to him original and immediate: “… an aesthetic principle can be called that by which a person is what he is, ethical, then, through which he becomes what he becomes. “(Pleasure and duty). Kierkegaard calls on a person to choose in favor of an ethical principle that opens him the possibility of religious and moral perfection, which does not exclude but subordinates the aesthetic principle. According to Kierkegaard, God himself was a kind of “seducer” – he called a person to aesthetic existence (Dasein), so that he learned to “live poetically”, i.e. to build his life as a work of art (the essence of which is beauty) on the basis of beautiful moral and religious principles, feeling at the same time a “work” of the highest artist – God.

From the middle of the 19th century, in the European culture, positivist and materialistic tendencies come to the fore, in the course of which the aesthetics of romantics and their followers seemed to be an antiscientific archaism. However, already from the second half of the 19th century, aesthetics of symbolism arose in response to positivism, which in many respects continued the tradition of Romanticism. The concept of an artistic symbol as an essential mediator between the material world and the pleroma of spiritual existence is at the center of attention of the aesthetics of symbolism, which comprehended all true art as exclusively symbolic.

Explicit aesthetics

Explicit (or philosophical) aesthetics formed quite late. As a science of the new European dimension, it was fixed by A. Baumgarten, who introduced the term “aesthetics” (1735), defined its subject, included in the system of other philosophical sciences; he holds a course of lectures on aesthetics and a treatise “Aesthetics” (Aesthetica, Bd 1-2, Fr.). Baumgarten distinguished two independent levels of being of the spirit (“logical horizon” and “aesthetic horizon”) and defined aesthetics as the science of special sensory cognition (gnoseologia inferior), comprehending the beautiful, about the laws of creation by beautiful works of art and the laws of their perception. Aesthetics, according to Baumgarten, consists of three main sections: the first is devoted to the study of beauty in things and in thinking, the second – to the basic laws of the arts and the third – to aesthetic signs in art. In the future, classical aesthetics dealt with the development of these main problems and the range of issues that somehow or other related to them or from them. E. Burke in the “Philosophical study of the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful” (1757) developed subjective and psychological aspects of aesthetics. The beautiful and sublime, according to Burke, are not objective properties of the objective world, but arise only in the soul of perceiving objects with certain properties in the act of contemplating it (for a small size, smooth surfaces, a smooth contour, clean and light colors, for the sublime – huge size, nebula, angularity, power, darkness). Aesthetic expediency, which from a sense of pleasure seems to the soul as beautiful, is determined by Burke as a subjective expediency from the sensation of the proportionality of the subject to the contemplated object. Burke’s ideas influenced the aesthetic theory of Kant and many other aesthetics.

Kant and Hegel made the most significant contribution to the development of philosophical aesthetics. In Kant’s philosophy, aesthetics is regarded as the final part of the general philosophical system. The reflective ability of judgment (“Criticism of Judgment”, 1790 – a special essay on aesthetics) in the system of cognitive abilities removes the contradictions between the mind and the mind, based on a sense of pleasure/displeasure. In contrast to his predecessors, the educators, who manifested the object of aesthetics in objective reality, who sought the objective foundations of beauty, Kant, relying on Burke’s ideas, and also on the development of the psychological school of Wolfe, closely linked the sphere of the aesthetic with the subject and his perception of the object, e. with the subject-object relationship. The categories of aesthetics that are most important for him-expedient, taste, beautiful, sublime-are the characteristics of non-utilitarian (aesthetic Kant) contemplation, accompanied by pleasure. “Taste is the ability to judge a subject or a mode of representation by pleasure or displeasure, free from any interest. The subject of such pleasure is called beautiful “(” Criticism of Judgment “, § 5). At the same time, Kant denied the existence of any objective rules of taste, for he was convinced that the judgment of taste is based on the “indefinite idea of ​​the supersensory in us.” He comprehends the aesthetic as a result of the free play of spiritual forces in the process of non-utilitarian contemplation of an object or in a creative act that concludes with the creation of a work of art. “Judgment is called an aesthetic precisely because the determining basis of it is not a concept, but a feeling (inner feeling) of the said harmony in the play of mental forces since it can be felt.” Having defined the beautiful as a form of expedient without a conception of the goal, as “an object of necessary pleasure,” Kant identifies two types of beauty: the free (pulchritudo vaga) and the adjoining. To the first and main, in the aesthetic sense, he refers objects that “like unconditionally and in themselves”, i.e. exclusively for their shape (many flowers, birds, molluscs, ornament in art, non-thematic music). Only in the evaluation of this beauty is the judgment of taste a “pure judgment”, detached from any concept of purpose, i.e. purely aesthetic. These ideas served as the theoretical basis for aesthetics and formalism in different aesthetic systems developed in the culture of the 19-20 centuries.

Sublime Kant more than beautiful, connected with the inner world of man, believing that objects that are disproportionate to the abilities of human perception, give a powerful emotional impulse to the soul. “It is sublime, one possibility of thinking about what already proves the ability of the soul, exceeding any scale of [external] feelings.” The phenomena of nature or social history, qualitatively or quantitatively superior to all that is represented by a man, give the soul the impulse to feel “the elevation of its destination in comparison with nature.” Art as an aesthetic phenomenon is the creation of genius, a special innate talent through which “nature gives art the rule.” This “rule” is original and not amenable to the verbal description; while it is as organic as the laws of nature. Art becomes the most important means of penetrating into the world of the supersensible. By these provisions, Kant opened the way to a cult of art that elevates him above philosophy and religion; they were borrowed and significantly expanded by romantics. In the aesthetics of Kant, the aesthetic is realized as a transcendental mediator between the immanent and the transcendent. The fundamental inaccessibility of aesthetic experience for a logical interpretation serves Kant as one of the convincing proofs of the existence of the sphere of transcendent ideas, including in the sphere of morality, is, in particular, the source of the “categorical imperative”. A person with a developed aesthetic sense must also have a moral sense, for he has internal access to the sphere of the transcendental.

In the mainstream of enlightenment aesthetics, Schiller made a significant contribution to aesthetic theory. In letters “On the Aesthetic Education of Man” (1795), he, developing the ideas of Kant, showed that the essence of the aesthetic is reduced to the instinct of the game, which must be developed in man in the process of aesthetic education. Only in the game is the true essence of man as a free spiritual being. In the process of playing a person creates a higher reality – an aesthetic reality, in which social and personal ideals are realized. The subject of the person’s attraction to the game is a beauty. According to Schiller, an aesthetic experience (in particular, art) helps a person to gain freedom and happiness, which only the primitive (natural) person possessed and which he lost with the development of civilization. The gap between a “natural” and a “reasonable” existence can only be removed by art, in the process of playing activity, which leads sensual and spiritual forces to optimal harmony. What we perceive as beautiful is at the same time true. Under the influence of the Yen romanticists, Schelling’s theoretical aesthetic was formed, which had a strong back on the aesthetics of Romanticism. In his lecture “The Philosophy of Art” (1802-05), in the treatise “On the relation of the fine arts to nature” (1807) and in other early works, he considered aesthetic contemplation as the highest form of creative activity of the spirit, saw in art (especially in poetry) way to realize the ideal, to remove the contradiction between the spiritual-theoretical and moral-practical spheres.

Hegel in “Lectures on Aesthetics” (1st edition, 1832-45) defined as the object of aesthetics “the vast kingdom of the beautiful, more precisely, the realm of art or, more precisely, of artistic creativity” and believed that this science should be called ” philosophy of art “or, more specifically,” the philosophy of artistic creativity “(ibid.). Art was understood by Hegel as one of the essential forms of self-revelation of the absolute spirit in the act of artistic activity. Accordingly, he saw the main goal of art in the expression of truth, which at the current level of actualization of the spirit was practically identified with the beautiful. The fine was interpreted as “sensory phenomenon, the sensual appearance of the idea”. Criticizing the simplified understanding of the mimetic principle of art as an imitation of the visible forms of reality, Hegel put forward as the most important category of aesthetics and the subject of art not mimesis, but an ideal by which he meant the beautiful in art. At the same time, Hegel stressed the dialectical nature of the ideal: the proportionality of the form of expression expressed to the idea, the discovery of its universality while preserving the individuality of content and the higher vital immediacy. Specifically, in the work of art, the ideal is revealed in the “subordination of all elements of the product of a single goal.” Aesthetic pleasure, the subject of perception experiences from the natural “made” of the work of art, which creates the impression of an organic product of nature, being a product of pure spirit.

Hegel saw in the history of culture the three stages of the development of art: symbolic, when the idea does not yet acquire adequate forms of artistic expression (the art of the Ancient East); classical, when the form and idea achieve complete adequacy (the art of Greek classics); romantic, when spirituality develops any forms of specifically sensual expression and liberated spirit is bursting into other forms of self-knowledge – religion and philosophy (European art, since the Middle Ages). At the third level, art is exhausted.

Hegel was in fact the last major representative of classical philosophical aesthetics. After it, it became one of the traditional university disciplines, without undergoing significant changes until the end of the 20th century. At the same time, its main provisions were interpreted in Kantian, then Hegelian, then phenomenological, then symbolist, then patchy-eclectic spirit. The results of German classical aesthetics were summed up in his academic work “Aesthetics, or the Science of the Beautiful” (Ästhetik oder Wissenschaft des Schönen, t.1-6, 1846-58, 2 Aufl., 1922-23) Fisher. The main thesis of his aesthetics: beauty is a subjective category that expresses the “transformed” in the consciousness of the perceiving life. In nature, beauty does not exist. With this position, Fischer actively polemicized, on the whole highly appreciating his research, NG Chernyshevsky in his thesis “Aesthetic relations of art to reality” (1855). For the Russian thinker, the “beauty of reality” is objective, although the perception and evaluation of it depend on many subjective factors (taste, psychology, etc.); the task of art is not to create the “appearance” of beauty (as in Fisher), but in the artistic comprehension of the phenomena of life, their explanation and evaluation. Reality, according to Chernyshevsky, is higher than any art. From F. Fisher and his son Roberts, the aesthetics of feeling developed by T. Lipps and V. Vorringer originates.

A specific place in the history of explicit aesthetics is occupied by Marxist-Leninist aesthetics. This eclectic, ultimately sociologized and ideologized discipline was formed in the USSR in the 1930s and 50s, although its foundations were laid by G. Plekhanov before the revolution of 1917 (“Art and Public Life,” 1912-13). Through laborious exegetical manipulations with all the texts of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and also on the basis of a tendentious interpretation of classical aesthetics and the work of democratically oriented Russian art critics and writers of the 19th century. Soviet aesthetics (M.Kagan) developed a fairly holistic aesthetic system in which the social and natural essence of beauty was established, the social and labor theory of the origin of art and aesthetic feelings, the ideological principles of class and party spirit were transferred to art, the only progressive method in art was considered realism, interpreted in the spirit of the “Leninist theory of reflection” (a materialistic version of the mimetic concept), and the highest form of art is socialist realism, ik- artists “truthful, historically accurate depiction of life in its revolutionary development” and in the forms of visible reality. Since the 1960s under the guise of Marxist-Leninist aesthetics, many Soviet aesthetics begin to develop axiological, psychological, semiotic, concepts and theories that go beyond the framework of orthodox Marxism-Leninism; the development of technical aesthetics, the theory of design. The most significant researches in the mainstream of Marxism are the multivolume monograph of D.Lukach “The Peculiarity of the Aesthetic” (1963) and “The Lectures on the Marxist-Leninist Aesthetics” by M.Kagan (1963-66, 1971), in which the authors abandoned many odious ideas of Soviet totalitarian aesthetics.

In the mainstream of socially oriented philosophy (as a kind of its removal) and with an orientation toward the artistic avant-garde, the last major research in the field of philosophical-metaphysical aesthetics was created – the unfinished monograph of Adorno “Aesthetic theory” (first published in 1970). In the spirit of his “negative dialectic,” he argued that the true art is only the art of self-destruction that occurs when the mimetic principle collides with the rational-technical one. At the moment of the disintegration of “appearance” (visible form) in the art (the ideal for Adorno was the theater of the absurdity of S. Beckett) a leap to “truth”, understood as absolute negation takes place. As aesthetic categories, Adorno derives pairs of antinomical (dynamic) concepts: process-objectivity, spirit-material, meaning-literalness, mimesis construction, totality-momentality, and so on. From the middle of the 19th century, in the Euro-American culture positivism, the rule of the natural sciences, is asserted, and a materialistic worldview is being actively formed. Scientists of various branches of knowledge try to explain aesthetic phenomena from empirical positions, relying on the data of psychophysiology, physics, sociology; In the 20th century, this line will continue mathematics, cybernetics, information theory specialists, linguists. From the discipline of the philosophical cycle, aesthetics in many studies turns into an optional application to specific sciences. The most famous figures in this direction were G. Fechner (“Propedeutics of Aesthetics”, 1876 – experimental aesthetics), T. Lipps (aesthetics as applied psychology), I. Teng (sociological design aesthetics), B. Croce (aesthetics as linguistics as “science about intuitive or expressive knowledge “).

With Nietzsche in aesthetics, in fact, a new stage begins – post-classical aesthetics; implicit aesthetics get new prospects for development. The very method of free semi-artistic philosophizing, the call to “revaluation of all values,” the rejection of all dogmas, the introduction of the concepts of the two antinomial elements in culture and art, gave Nietzsche a strong impulse to free, pluralistic, unsystematic philosophizing in the sphere of aesthetics. In the spirit of his inherent antinomianism and paradox, Nietzsche proclaimed the advent of the “aesthetic age”, when the existence of the world can only be justified from aesthetic grounds. With the debunking of traditional cultural values, the “exposing” of the basic postulates of morality (“beyond the good and evil,” “to the genealogy of morality”) and any rational substantiation of being from the point of view of universal or divine laws, facing the terrible prospect of looking “beyond the edge” created by the culture of harmonic Apollonian reality in the chaotic Dionysian kingdom of immoral (from the standpoint of traditional morality) foundations of the world, only a global aesthetic world-feeling is capable of holding the existential ba ans and keep a positive tone being.

In the 20th century, aesthetic problems were most productively developed not so much in special studies as in the context of other sciences, primarily in the theory of art and art criticism, psychology, sociology, semiotics, linguistics and in the spaces of the latest (postmodern philosophical texts). The most influential and significant in the 20th century can be considered phenomenological aesthetics, psychoanalytic, semiotic, existential; aesthetics within structuralism and poststructuralism, flowing in the 1960s into postmodern, theological aesthetics (Catholic and Orthodox).

Phenomenological aesthetics (the main representatives of R.Ingarden, M.Merlo-Ponty, M.Dyufren, N.Gartman) focused on the aesthetic consciousness and work of art, treating it as a self-sufficient phenomenon of intentional contemplation and experience outside of any historical, social, ontological, etc., ties and relationships. The discovery of the multilayered (horizontally and vertically) structure of the work of art and its “concretization” (Ingarden) in the consciousness of the recipient, the “phenomenology of expression” and “bodily” perception (Merleau-Ponty), the multi-level structure of aesthetic perception (Dufrene) are significant achievements of this aesthetics.

Psychoanalytic aesthetics is based on theories of Freud and his numerous followers. According to the concept of Freud, the main engine of artistic and aesthetic activity is the unconscious processes of the psyche. Characteristic of the unconscious primary instincts and replaced by socio-cultural prohibitions, sensual drives and desires of man (sexual, aggressive) sublimated in creative individuals in art. The artist bypasses the prohibitions of censorship of the preconscious and transforms the raging fancies of flesh and psychic complexes into a free play of creative energies. Enjoying art is a pleasure from the realization in it, albeit in a symbolic form, of repressed and forbidden carnal drives and thoughts. Hence the special interest of psychoanalytical and post-Freudian aesthetics to the intimate details of life and states of the artist’s psyche, in which the keys to understanding works of art are sought. In the 20th century, practically all the history of art and literature was rewritten in this channel, and a mighty stream of contemporary art criticism is moving in it. One of the significant methodological sources of understanding of the erotic symbolism of art was Freud’s work “Interpretation of Dreams” (1900). Freudianism and post-Freudianism had and have a strong influence both on the art of the 20th century, and on the main directions of implicit aesthetics. The body, corporeality, bodily impulses and intentions, haptic experiences are at the center of the modern aesthetic experience. Leaning on psychoanalysis, Jung believed, in contrast to the Freudians, that the basis of artistic creativity is not so much an individual as a “collective unconscious”; in art, the artist’s libidinal attractions are not symbolically expressed, but the ancient archetypes, preserved in the psyche of every person, are encoded.

The doctrine of the unconscious has become a common denominator for post-Freudianism and structuralism (especially late) in their approach to artistic phenomena. On the other hand, the aesthetics of structuralism actively relied on the experience of the Russian “formal school” in literary criticism (B. Eichenbaum, R. Jacobson), which introduced into aesthetics such concepts as reception, estrangement, and deliberation. The main theorists of structuralism (K.Levi-Strauss, M.Fuko, J.Ricardu, R.Bart) saw in art (in literature, first of all) a completely autonomous reality that unconsciously arose on the basis of certain universal constructive rules, structural principles, “episteme “,” Non-recursive practices “, and so on, i.e. on the basis of certain universal laws of “poetic language”, which are difficult to discursively describe. Structuralists extend the notion of “text” to art (as well as to culture as a whole), believing that any “text” can be analyzed from the linguistic semiotic positions. The language of art is interpreted as a “super-language”, presupposing polysemy and multidimensionality of the meanings contained therein. The history of cultural phenomena (including artistic ones) is represented to structuralists as a change, transformation, modification of equivalent poetic devices, artistic structures, codes of non-verbalized connotations, formal techniques and elements. In the approach to the artistic text, all possible interpretations and hermeneutic moves are recognized as equals, for polysemy is supposed to be the basis of the original structural codes of this kind of texts. In the course of structuralism, semiotic aesthetics, originating in Charles Morris, was formed and directed its efforts toward revealing the semantic specificity of the artistic text (U. Eko, M. Bense, J. Lothman).

In the 1970s and 1980s, structuralism was drawing closer to psychoanalysis (J. Lacan, J.-F.Liotard, J.Delez) and flowing into poststructuralism and post-Freudianism. As the basic artistic and aesthetic concepts affirm unconscious, language, text, writing, rhizome, schizoanalysis (instead of psychoanalysis), libidinal. The diffusion of structuralism and post-Freudianism led, in aesthetics, to attempts to find internal connections between the structure of the work of art and the consciously unconscious spheres of the artist’s and recipient’s psyche, which cast doubt on the unshakable objective scientific nature of structuralism. His adjustment led to a state in the humanities and culture in general, which received the naming of Postmodern, or postmodernism.

The aesthetics of postmodernism, in fact, abandoned any aesthetic theory or philosophy of art in the traditional sense. This is, in the full sense of the word, non-classical aesthetics. Theorists (they are also practitioners) of postmodernism (Derrida, Deleuze, Jenks, Baudrillard, W. James, W. Welsh) view art on a par with other cultural phenomena (and cultures of the past) and civilization, removing any fundamental difference between them. The whole universe of culture is conventionally recognized as a game kaleidoscope of texts, meanings, forms and formulas, symbols, simulacra and simulations. There is neither true, nor false, nor beautiful, nor ugly, neither tragic nor comic. Everything and everything is present in everything, depending on the conventional installation of the recipient or researcher. Everything can be fun (mostly psychophysiological – libidinal, sadomasochistic, etc.) with the appropriate deconstructive and reconstructive technology for handling the object or an ironic setting. Conscious eclecticism and omnivorousness (from the standpoint of ironism, originating in the aesthetics of Romantics and Kierkegaard, and the deliberate profanation of traditional values, their “mockery”) of postmodernism allowed his theoreticians to take an aсystematic, adogmatic, relativistic, extremely free and open position. In the global system of intertexts and semantic labyrinths, any specificity disappears, including aesthetic.

Notable place in the 20 century occupies a theological aesthetics, activated as a kind of reaction to the intensification of destructive-crisis phenomena in culture. The largest religious philosophers and theologians turned their close attention to the aesthetic sphere. They developed such fundamental concepts for orthodox aesthetics as the Sophy of art (expression in the work of the ideal visual appearance of the archetype, its Eidos), canonicity, modern understanding of the icon as an ideal sacred mystic work of art, endowed with the energy of an archetype, theurgy and some. In the Catholic world, aesthetics of neo-Thomism occupies a prominent place. Its main representatives (E. Jilson, J. Marten), relying on the ideas of scholastic aesthetics (mainly in the version of Thomas Aquinas), modernize them by certain principles of the aesthetics of romanticism, intuitionism and other idealistic concepts of creativity. Truth, goodness and beauty as the spokesmen of the divine essence in the created world are the main engines of artistic creativity, subjective in its core, but fed from a divine source. In their essence, the ideas of the Neo-Thomists resonate with the aesthetic concept of V. Kandinsky, most fully described in the book “On the spiritual in art” (1911). Neo-Thomists positively relate to the art of avant-gardists, believing that many of them managed to express the spiritual, moral-aesthetic essence of being fully. The largest study in the field of theological aesthetics is the fundamental three-volume (in six books) study by H. Urs von Balthazar “Herrlichkeit. Theological aesthetics “(1961-62). Its author, developing the ideas of Augustine and Bonaventure, bases his aesthetics on the fact that the beauty of the created world is the image of the comprehensible Creator and in the aesthetic perception of it an extra-conceptual comprehension of God occurs. The aesthetic perception of the world is essentially the perception of the “form, or beauty (species) of Christ”, spilled in the created world. Having inspected the form embodied in Christ, or the image in general, Balthazar unfolds the field of the main aesthetic categories: beauty, form, display, image, prototype, imitation, etc. He sees the two stages of aesthetic experience, or the comprehension of “form”: the first is the perception of the “formal” principles of the created world, the realization of their organic naturalness, to the reconstruction of which only the artist-genius can approach; the second is the attainment of the actual “form” of Christ on the basis of Holy Scripture, the development of the ability to “marvel” and marvel at the unsurpassedness of this “form” (beauty), which is also proof of the true embodiment of God the Word. The aesthetic, according to Balthasar, is the most important component of Christianity, which he regards as an aesthetic religion, for in principle it can not do without aesthetic experience.

Non-classical aesthetics

The experimental-search stage in modern aesthetics, determined by the general situation in the technogenic civilization of the second half of the 20th century, reached the point of bifurcation by the end of the century, after which a jump to some new quality is possible, a transition to a system of new levels of organization, or a collapse in a chaotic state, fraught with the destruction of the Earth’s biosphere. By the middle of the 20th century, the process of active and increasingly accelerating conscious-unconscious “reassessment of all values” under the influence of the scientific and technological revolution that significantly altered the psychogenic structure of the man of Western civilization reached such a state that significant changes in the aesthetic object, the aesthetic subject and their relations, . the very subject of aesthetics began to change.

Among the main reasons for the emergence of non-classical aesthetics can also be called the rejection of classical rationalism in science, from eurocentrism in the sphere of spiritual culture, cardinal changes in the sphere of a concentrated aesthetic object – art, the most sensitive seismograph of cosmoanthropic, civilizational, sociocultural processes. After a brief rise of refined aestheticism within the symbolism and modernity of the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, a powerful avant-garde modern movement began in art, which proclaimed and largely realized the rejection of the traditional fundamental principles of art: mimetism, idealization, symbolization and any expression and even designation; theo- or anthropocentrism; from the artistic and aesthetic essence of art in general. They were replaced by mechanistic principles of collage, editing, assembling, deconstruction, global citations and centrality, or the latest “strategies” of environmental, postmodern aesthetics: the organization of art spaces or semantic landscapes, cultural labyrinths, haptical spaces, audiovisual energy fields, virtual realities and so on. The dehumanization of art, noticed by H.Ortega-i-Gasset, has acquired a global dimension, as well as the absolutization of the creative gesture, or, rather, of any arbitrariness, personality, erected by the artistic element or art-oligarchy as an artist. Many modern art practices practically refuse their “objects” in their aesthetic essence. Arts ceases to be “fine arts”, i.e. carriers of aesthetic.

If the master utilitarians of modern design, artistic design, architecture, habitat organization, basing on the achievements of technology and technology, as well as on the principles of clarity, functionality, rationality, implement the Apollonian (according to the Nietzschean definition) principle of artistic creativity, then many avant-garde non-utilitarian art , modernism, postmodernism are moving along the ways of awakening and actualization of the Dionysian element, released by the entire course of the technogenic civilization that led humanity to the brink of a global catastrophe. Here powerful chthonic and vital principles are activated. In this case, the irrational, the unconscious, the absurd often rage in the alchemical crucible of strict conceptuality. In the formed art element, the thing that has emerged out of the control of utilitarianism is dominated by a thing in itself and in itself with its material (visual, auditory, haptic) energies and a body that “gives place to such an existence whose essence is not to have no entity “(Nancy J.-L. Corpus), fully armed with sensorics. In this turbulent current of the modern art process, some profound artistic-anti-artistic providential activity – the sensation of a fundamentally different stage of civilizational development and active work on it – is combined with the complete confusion of the artistic and aesthetic consciousness before it.

Along with the essential changes in the sphere of art, by the end of the 20th century, the general scientific picture of the world also changed. In particular, under the influence of ecology and the traditional oriental ideas actively assimilated by the West, the surrounding nature is conceived as an integral self-developing system and even as a living being whose organic member is a person. Hence, the system of non-utilitarian relations between the object and the subject essentially changes on the basis of the removal of their traditional opposition; in fact, it is this system that acquires a priority and qualitatively new significance over utilitarian relations. All this led to revision or significant adjustment of many provisions of classical aesthetics.

First of all, in the aesthetics after T. Adorno, the implicit level is again activated. The aesthetics themselves are engaged in a substantial revision of the foundations of aesthetics and the search for new paradigms and principles of authentic aesthetic discourse, relying on other modern humanitarian and even natural sciences, non-traditional for Western thinking spiritual practices, on the aesthetic experience of traditional civilizations of antiquity. As a kind of propaedeutics of the nonclassical aesthetics of the 20th century, the category of aesthetic that includes not only traditional aesthetic categories and concepts but also many oppositions (or even antiesthetics from the point of view of classical aesthetics) phenomenon and category (absurd, abstruse, cruelty, shock, violence, sadism, masochism, destructiveness, entropy, chaos, corporeality, maze, labyrinth, environment, landscape, strategy, rhizome, freestyle, simulacrum, etc.). The concepts of aesthetic pleasure (“texts of pleasure” and “texts of pleasure”, according to R. Bart), ironism (penetrating not only postmodern culture, but also science), compositions (theoretically prepared method of “cutting” by W. Burroughs, the labyrinth U . Eko, stochastic principles of music creation K.-H.Shtokhausen, etc.). Nonclassical aesthetics, using the language of synergetics, is a kind of “nonlinear medium”, a potential field of infinite possibilities, in which some intellectual and spiritual root of the new humanitarian science of the future ripens. The blurring of the boundaries between the object and the subject, between reality and the text, between the signified and the signifier, the diffusion of the real and virtual (in the computerized world), the objective and the subjective, stimulate the constant search for authentic strategies and discourses of aesthetic research, which today constitutes the main task of nonclassical aesthetics.

Ethical Science in the 21st Century

Due to the fundamental limitations of the level of formalization of the subject of aesthetics and its versatility, which requires the researcher to have fundamental knowledge (at least in the field of the history of art and all the humanities) and sharpened artistic feelings, aesthetics still remains in all respects the most difficult, laborious, ordered from all humanitarian disciplines. Today, as well as at the moment of emergence, the main focus of aesthetics is two main problems: aesthetic and art in its essential grounds. Terms, their designators, in fact – its main categories, meta category. All other categories are derived from them and have the purpose, in one way or another, to specify particular aspects and levels of the main categories and phenomena designated by them. For classical aesthetics as the most significant affirmed Field phenomenal problem and therefore signifying their terms and categories: aesthetic consciousness (including aesthetic perception, imagination, inspiration), aesthetic experience, aesthetic culture (including the basic laws and principles of art and culture, artistic text, the language of art , typology of art), aesthetic education, play, beautiful, ugly, sublime, tragic, comic, ideal, catharsis, pleasure, mimezi with, image, symbol, sign, expression, creative method, style, form and content, genius, creativity and some others. In the aesthetics of the 20th century, many principles for the classification of aesthetic categories and an almost countless number of categories themselves, sometimes reaching the point of absurdity, arose. Appeared in the mid 20th century the trend of non-classical aesthetics in line with Freudianism, structuralism, postmodernism focused on the assertion as central marginal, and often anti-aesthetic (from the perspective of classical aesthetics) problems and categories (such absurd, abstruse, violence, shock, violence, sadism, masochism, destructiveness, entropy, chaos, corporeality); modern aesthetics are guided by the principles of relativity, polysemy, polymorphism of values ​​and ideals, and more often they generally refuse them. Moreover, the newest humanities themselves (especially in the field of post-structuralist postmodern textography) actively rely on aesthetic experience in their practice; their texts often turn into modern artifacts, aesthetic objects that require aesthetic-hermeneutic analysis, into some propaedeutic fragments of a virtual “game” in the beads “(according to Hesse). All this testifies both to the extraordinary complexity and many-sidedness of the object of aesthetics, constantly balancing on the verge of the material – the spiritual, the rational – the irrational, the verbalized – the non-verbalized, and the great prospects of this science. Even today, the tendencies of its development into a kind of hyper-science that has gradually drawn into itself the basic sciences of the humanitarian cycle (philology, theoretical art history, partly cultural studies, semiotics, structuralism) have become quite clear and actively uses the experience and achievements of many other modern sciences.

If you have found any error in this study, please, notify a Simply Philosophy author by selecting that text and pressing Ctrl+Enter.

Rate your experience with this philosophy study!

Discuss this Study


If you have found any error in this study, please, notify a Simply Philosophy author by selecting that text and pressing Ctrl+Enter.