Aesthetics: A Very Short Introduction

This brief text on the topic of Aesthetics, provides the reader understandable discussion on the topic and helps to encourage humble engagement with various types of art - from a more global perspective. The author shares their expansive knowledge of art, history, philosophy and culture in an approachable way. I would be interested in reading other books in this “Very Short Introduction” series to expand my knowledge on new fields of study - without being intimidated.

After reading this short introduction I found myself puzzled about what an aesthetic experience is, what it is about, and why one might want to have such an experience in the first place. I did gather from the book that an aesthetic experience sometimes, but not always, involves "free and open ended attention," but this turns out to be just a fancy way of describing "savoring" the overall qualities of an experience without a particular goal in mind. According to the author, aesthetic experience does not pertain to any objective quality of the thing one pays attention to. Any aesthetic judgment one might have is entirely due to bias (cultural bias, exposure bias, and so on.) So no aesthetic judgement is any better than any other. Apparently just about anything can be the subject of an aesthetic experience (it certainly doesn't have to be "art") and any value one gets from the experience (pleasure, insight, complexity, sense of formal beauty, etc.) is purely subjective if not downright pretentious. Aesthetic discussions are pointless (unless you are, say, a snobbish teenager talking about his favorite band) because they erroneously assign value to one thing over another. So, apparently, aesthetics is nothing more that really liking something for personal reasons and then paying attention it. Other more complex ideas about Aesthetics, (like say Kant's) are touched on briefly and offhandedly dismissed. I finished the book wondering, "if that's all there is to aesthetics, why bother having a special word for it? Why write a book about it at all?" In a sense, the book did do its job, because I immediately bought a longer book (And Introduction to Aesthetics by Gordon Graham) that investigates the rich and sumptuous array of aesthetic theories that differ from the stultifying one presented in this introduction.

The central thesis, that aesthetic values and tastes are culture-bound, I believe to be fallacious. This little book reviews some interesting observations supporting its point of view, but neglects all that would contradict it.

The usual overly simplistic two dimensional woke drivel with more than a touch of ressentiment I'm sure.

When a book like Nanay's uses the phrase "dead white males," it frames these thinkers as a "special interest group" rather than the standard-bearers of excellence they’ve been considered for centuries. This shift from quality to identity is exactly why many people see modern academia as more interested in politics than in truth or beauty. Avoid this Anti-inclusive book like the ‘white’ plague of London. A masterpiece—whether it’s a Greek statue or a Bach concerto—is considered "classic" precisely because it transcends the identity of the person who made it. To dismiss them based on their race is to do exactly what "anti-racists" claim to oppose: judging an idea by the skin color of its origin. So why is this book so flawed… The Equivalence Fallacy: Nanay treats the experience of a great symphony and the experience of adding salt to soup as logically similar because they are both "sensory." Critics argue this is a category error: it ignores the vast difference in complexity, intentionality, and cognitive depth required to appreciate high art versus basic physical pleasure. The Relativist Trap: By arguing that aesthetics is purely about "the way you look at the world" rather than the qualities of the object itself, the book loses the ability to define what isn't art. If everything is aesthetic, then the term "aesthetics" loses its specific meaning and becomes a synonym for "experience," which makes the entire field of study logically redundant. Genetic Fallacy (The "Dead White Male" issue): Attacking the classical canon because of the identity of its creators rather than the validity of their arguments is a logical error. Even if every classical philosopher were a "dead white male," it doesn't logically follow that their observations about symmetry, beauty, or human perception are incorrect or non-universal. Circular Reasoning on Inclusion: The book suggests we must move past the Western canon to be "inclusive," but it uses Western academic standards and a Western publishing house to make that argument. It assumes that "traditional" means "exclusive," ignoring the fact that people of all races and cultures have found universal value in those traditional standards for centuries. Subjective Contradiction: Nanay attempts to provide a "Very Short Introduction" to a field of study, which implies there are facts or established concepts to learn. However, by pushing a purely subjective view (it's all about your personal "mental spotlight"), he undermines the idea that there is any objective "introduction" to give.

Waste iftime nothing new learned from this book except aesthetics as a sustained versus temporary effect.

If I could, i would ask for a refund...

This book provides beginners with the basic tools to help them understand a rather complex topic.

This book is great for its contemporary value, not much its historical value. Don‘t get confused and think it‘s about the history of western aesthetics. In my humble opinion, it is more about the problems of aesthetic in a general manner. I strongly recommend it.

I wanted an introduction to aesthetics and got a "critical" introduction to it instead. The author definitely has his own take on aesthetics, but it resonated with me, so I enjoyed it quite a lot. Do not expect to get an unbiased theoretical breakdown of the subject. This book is more the author's personal take on the topic. Still quite interesting.

It's really for very young students who know virtually nothing about psychology, perception or art history, western or non-western. He is so concerned not to scare anyone away with anything complex that he spends too much time worrying about occidentocentricity. We all get it that other cultures have made different art, and that we won't ever be able to fully understand why they made the art that they did. He says almost nothing about music, a fault in my view.