Premium
Aesthetic Testimony and the Test of Time
Author(s) -
Robson Jon
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
philosophy and phenomenological research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.7
H-Index - 39
eISSN - 1933-1592
pISSN - 0031-8205
DOI - 10.1111/phpr.12363
Subject(s) - citation , test (biology) , philosophy , computer science , library science , paleontology , biology
It is a relatively simple matter to specify, at least in broad terms, the conditions under which we can come to know that a particular artwork has various descriptive properties; that a painting is a certain size, a sonata in a specific key, a novel by a particular author, and so forth. By contrast, there is considerable disagreement as to how to properly judge the evaluative aesthetic properties of an artwork. In this paper I consider two influential claims concerning such judgements (hereafter ‘aesthetic judgements’) and argue that there is a hitherto underexplored tension between them. The first of these (TT) maintains that the surest test of the aesthetic value of an artwork is how well its reputation weathers ‘changes of climate, government, religion, and language’ (Hume: 1757 / 1875: 255); that is, whether it passes ‘the test of time’. 1 The second (NT) is the view, often referred to as ‘pessimism concerning aesthetic testimony’, according to which testimony cannot serve as a legitimate source for aesthetic judgements. That ‘a thing has pleased others could never serve as the basis for an aesthetical judgment’ (Kant 1790 / 2005: 94).