The Aesthetic Attitude

Jerome Stolnitz wants to push forward an understanding to the idea of “perception” and
“attitude” which becomes something that deviates from the daily routine of the usage of
“perception” and “attitude”. The discussion revolves around the idea of the “aesthetic
attitude”, in which something that is genuinely revolving around the appreciation of a certain
object, and nothing else. Stolnitz begins by analyzing the regular adaptation of the attitude of
perception. In the current world, we are always biased with our way of perceiving the
environment. Certain things in the environment has a grade of attention that instills upon us.
It’s said by Stolnitz that the way we see the world is discriminate based on our motivation and
capacity for attention. Especially when looking at details, Stolnitz says that our perception of
things are different, for example, a tracker notices details in the forest that are odd to the
natural environment, meanwhile, the regular walker passes by said details. One of the reasons
for this, according to Stolnitz is the fact that we detail the environment in biased ways. But in a
deeper note, we have the attitude of ‘practical perception’. This practical perception is the
attention that we give to certain details in the environment that we use for an ulterior motive.
The ulterior motive that we talk about here is a possibility of being used in a future event. For
example, when we ride a car, we give as much attention to the road as possible. And in this
attention, we perceive the blinking of the traffic lights, a minute detail that may not be noticed
by a jaywalker walking along the streets (unless they want to cross the street). This practical
perception to the traffic lights is used by the driver as a means to achieving a future event:
avoiding collision, avoiding traffic congestion, avoiding a penalty, or simply just wanting to cross
the road legally. We are often guided with the question: “what can I do with it, and what can it
do to/for me?” Our perception in this case is fragmented, that we only see these details not for
its intricate self, but for the purpose of being used as a means to achieve something. Then
afterwards, we usually forget about these details because they are no longer within our
thoughts and vicinity. Stolnitz then wants to introduce an understanding to what is “aesthetic
perception” or “aesthetic attitude”.
The definition that he gives to the aesthetic attitude is a “disinterested and sympathetic
attention to and contemplation of any object of awareness whatever, for its own sake alone.”
Stolnitz, in order to explain the aesthetic attitude, isolates the definition to give better insight.
He tackles first the idea of “disinterested”. The word “disinterested” in this definition is
important for the definition. What he means by this is not a lack of interest in the objection,
because he frames this as ‘uninterested’, but rather, disinterested means that we do not look at
the object as a means to achieve something, but we look at the object for itself. We do not
manipulate the object to serve our concerns. There are a lot of interests towards certain
objects because of the person’s need for it. For example, the usual collector of old books bids
for an astonishingly old book not because he admires its intricacies, or its content, but because
he looks at it as a very valuable piece; something that adds to his collection. Another form of
interest towards something is the “cognitive interest”, or a further advancement of our
knowledge when we study a certain object. Even though there are cases where researchers
look at a certain object and are fascinated by it, but more often than not, they choose to study
the object not because of its value as for itself, but because of the value they see beyond the
image they are shown; which is the knowledge of its past—the knowledge of it being used for
their study.
Quite a distance from all these perception is the true nature of the aesthetic attitude
towards the object. A viewer who wants to have an aesthetic attitude towards something sees
the object for the way it looks, for the way it sounds, for the way it feels, and for its whole
quality as something as presented to them. Stolnitz also defines the word “sympathetic” in the
definition of the aesthetic attitude. When we are sympathetic towards objects, we often
prepare ourselves to anything the object gives. Aesthetically, we take a journey to enjoy the
individual quality of the object. We sympathize with the said object, and we don’t look beyond
the image itself and give it a different meaning. We take the object as is. We also define the
word “attention”. Giving our attention to an object with the basis of aesthetic attitude, we go
beyond “just looking” at it. In fact, we give our full demonstrative attention to let ourselves be
indulged by the object, being itself. Whenever we listen to music, we may give our attention to
it by tapping to the beat of the song, and appreciating it as it is. We may also close our eyes and
feel the ocean waves hitting us as we dip ourselves in the ocean waters. Or we could touch the
velvet feeling of a textile that we find to be very beautiful because of how it is. We go beyond
the thought of simply looking at something to appreciate it, because true aesthetic attitude lets
us experience an object in whatever way we can to receive the full dispersed quality that it
gives. To “contemplate” with the object in virtue of aesthetic attitude is to be absorbed by the
object and have interest towards it as itself. The aesthetic attitude that has been defined by
Stolnitz is taking the object, phenomenologically, as it is, and giving our whole-bodied attention
towards it with no regard to any other interest that it could be used for.
Disinterestedness & Political Art
Peggy Zeglin Brand goes against the arguments of many traditional philosophers,
including Jerome Stolnitz, the author of the previous essay, on the supposed attitude towards
art. Many traditional thinkers underline the attitude towards viewing and appreciating art
disinterestedly. Meaning, they infer that to appreciate art, we must look at them with no bias,
and no discrimination of using said art for other interests. Anthony, Earl of Shaftesbury says
that disinterestedness is both a moral and aesthetical ideal to avoid using art to serve one’s
own needs. In this sense, disinterestedness was a direct contract to the desire to possess an
object. Francis Hutcheson even expanded because putting an interest in objects opens taking
advantage of it, and wondering what could lead to such action. Edmund Burke used
disinterestedness as a central theme for his theory of beauty. Archibald Alison said that lack of
self-seeking motives is not enough, but also, we must put ourselves in the state of mind that
gives attention to the object with no other particular bias, a phenomenological attitude, per se.
David Hume and Kant both argued that we must remove personal prejudice in giving attention
to art, and that we must be without interest in using art for something else. Stolnitz, then
argues that disinterestedness in art allows us to be pure and unflawed as a preparation to
receive the experience of an object without any distortion coming from our natural biases and
prejudices.
Brand considers an anti-thesis to the whole disinterestedness idea. Brand argues that
putting a different interest in objects will eventually become inevitable, and there will be a need
to surpass the neutrality that objects are depicted on having, according to the disinterestedness
attitude. In this postmodern view, Brand says that sooner or later, there is a need to view art as
something beyond its superficial quality. Disinterestedness is often used as an attitude imposed
on men when viewing art that ‘naturally’ depicts women. Or in even other terms, men are often
told to look at women posing for nude paintings as themselves, appreciating the superficial
qualities present in physicality. It is often noted that the male gaze is guised as having a
disinterested value. Brand, and many other feminist art theorists argue that disinterestedness,
especially in this sense, is not credible and strong to stand. It is often that subjects of male gaze
are unnaturally depicted as the actual representation of women. They create unrealistic
standards of women because male viewers look at images of women and look at these with a
possessing and objectifying look, which is highly different as contrasted by disinterestedness as
a value being attributed towards art. Men in these instances, with the thought of being
disinterested in mind, would say that the nude model is beautiful, taking in the quality time
looking at the curves, and all the presentations given to them. But Orlan, a French artist had
gone through a series of reconstructive surgeries to disprove the disinterestedness that men
would have towards objects of male gaze. She used several paintings made by past male artists
as guides to create a self-portrait through surgical procedures. She claims in this way that no
woman can ever attain a male-defined idea of beauty. We are also presented with examples of
images that have two or more different visual appearances. Perceptions typically are not free
from biases. Neuroscience and Psychology argue always that it’s impossible to let go of biases
when we experience things. That’s why, disinterestedness is not really wholesome by its whole
aspect because people do have many instances of biases. There is an example of a duck-rabbit
drawing, where people would often see either a duck, or a rabbit, but they are able to, at times,
switch between the two voluntarily, and at times, involuntarily. What does this mean? No
matter how much we try to free ourselves from biases, we are only able to perceive and focus
on certain qualities, and switch to another. But there are times that this switch can occur
involuntarily as well.
Brand ends with saying that art can give different sorts of experiences towards people,
and there many times that these experiences are conflicting, thus, removing the fact that
appreciation of art creates a singular reality and understanding for it. It is very unnatural to be
able to let go of emotions and experiences just to appreciate art. In fact, it is within the fact that
we have different experiences that we appreciate certain art more than others, and that we
have our preferences. Our preferences contain the true meaning that we may give towards art,
and this is what makes art very special. Art is something that is interpreted in a large variety of
meaning only attained by the viewer.
 Disinterestedness, though a great value by itself, that we must let go of the biases that
we have to fully be understanding of art, is very hard, and almost impossible to obtain. As
humans, we have different experiences and emotions that are associated with various things.
When we feel sad when we listen to a song, or feel happy when we see a nostalgic object, we
do not necessarily appreciate them because we take them regardless of our experiences. In
fact, we appreciate these things because of our experiences that are different. An ice cream
may be a source of happiness for one kind, or a source of trauma for another because of their
past experience. If we view the ice cream by itself, we suppress the emotion that we feel, and
therefore, suppress the ability to relate with the object in the most genuine way. There are
times, however, that we can use disinterestedness when it is due, but there are many times
when we need certain prejudices and biases to make the best dedicated action towards
something.