Aesthetics and Painting

The book opens with a large and important question of intellectual motive: ‘Can philosophy reveal something about painting that might otherwise remain hidden or obscure: in what ways might it deepen our understanding?’ Gaiger is too decent to push forward the companion question, which he neverthless implies: ‘Can pseudo-philosophy—spurious sophistication—obscure things that might otherwise become clear; in what ways might it make our understanding shallow?’ Our encounters with paintings are guided—for better or worse—by our theoretical suppositions. Hence lucidity, care with the arguments, sifting of the evidence, reflection on concepts can help one better appreciate works of art. Moreover, anyone who accepts this should also accept that it carries a lamentable alternative: misconceptions, modish preoccupations, false analogies, and exotic theorizing can ‘help’ one be less appreciative of art. I have frequently met students of art history (and ex-students who are now taste makers and officers of the art world) who are convinced, for example, that photography has ‘replaced’ naturalistic painting. They appear uninterested in distinguishing between a historical fact, namely that photography has indeed taken up much of the space once occupied by naturalistic painting, and philosophical enquiry: in what ways has photography been similar to, or different from, naturalistic painting? A distinction they would hardly fail to make if wine were ‘replaced’ with water at a dinner party

Aesthetics · Art · Epistemology · Naturalism · Painting · Photography · Sophistication · Taste · Visual arts · Philosophy · Psychology · Visual Culture and Art Theory