Advertisement

Foundations of Science

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 795–807 | Cite as

Outline of a Theory of Scientific Aesthetics

  • Gustavo E. Romero
Article
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

I offer a theory of art that is based on science. I maintain that, as any other human activity, art can be studied with the tools of science. This does not mean that art is scientific, but aesthetics, the theory of art, can be formulated in accord with our scientific knowledge. I present elucidations of the concepts of aesthetic experience, art, work of art, artistic movement, and I discuss the ontological status of artworks from the point of view of scientific philosophy.

Keywords

Aesthetics Art Ontology Science 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank Federico Langer for constructive conversations and Daniela Pérez for reading the manuscript. My work is in part supported by Grant PIP 0338 (CONICET).

References

  1. Berlyne, D. E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appletoll-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  2. Brattico, E., & Pearce, M. (2013). The neuroaesthetics of music. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bunge, M. (1989). Ethics: The good and the right. In Treatise of basic philosophy (Vol. 8). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chandrasekhar, S. (1984). The general theory of relativity: Why “it is probably the most beautiful of all existing theories”. Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 5, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chao, W. Z. (1997). The beauty of general relativity. Foundations of Science, 2, 61–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collingwood, R. G. (1958). The principles of art. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Currie, G. (1989). An ontology of art. New York: St Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davies, S. (2013). Definitions of art. In B. Gaut & D. M. Lopes (Eds.), The Routledge companion to aesthetics (3rd ed., pp. 213–222). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Di Dio, C., & Gallese, V. (2009). Neuroaesthetics: A review. Current Opinion in Neurobilology, 9, 682–687.Google Scholar
  10. Dirac, P. A. M. (1980). Why we believe in the Einstein theory. In B. Gruber & R. S. Millman (Eds.), Symmetries in science (pp. 1–11). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dorsch, F. (2000). The nature of aesthetic experiences, M. Phil. Thesis, University College London, London.Google Scholar
  12. Ebert, R. (2004). Review of taxi driver. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-taxi-driver-1976. Accessed 10 May 2017.
  13. Einstein, A. (1915). In The collected papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 6: The Berlin years: Writings, 1914–1917 (p. 98) (trans: Engel, A.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Einstein, A. (1950). Out of my later years. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
  15. Engler, G. (2002). Einstein and the most beautiful theories in physcis. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 16(1), 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Engler, G. (2005). Einstein, his theories, and his aesthetic considerations. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 19(1), 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Funch, B. S. (1999). The psychology of art appreciation. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.Google Scholar
  18. Landau, L. D., & Liftshitz, E. M. (1971). The classical theory of fields. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  19. Langer, F. (2016). Art theory for (neuro)scientists: Bridging the gap. Poetics Today, 37(4), 497–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meskin, A. (2008). From defining art to defining the individual arts: The role of theory in the philosophies of art. In K. Stock & K. Thomson-Jones (Eds.), New waves in aesthetics (pp. 125–149). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pais, A. (1982). Subtle is the Lord: The science and life of Albert Einstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Renn, J., Janssen, M., & Schemmel, M. (Eds.). (2007). The genesis of general relativity (Vol. 4). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Sartre, J.-P. (1966). The psychology of imagination (trans: B. Frechtman). New York: Washington Square Press.Google Scholar
  24. Slonimsky, N. (2000). Lexicon of musical invective: Critical assaults on composers since Beethoven’s time. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  25. Thomasson, A. L. (1999). Fiction and metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Thomasson, A. L. (2004). The ontology of art. In P. Kivy (Ed.), The Blackwell guide to aesthetics (pp. 78–92). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Thompson, D., & Christie, I. (Eds.). (1996). Scorsese on scorsese. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  28. Wollheim, R. (1980). Art and its objects (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto Argentino de Radioastronomía (IAR, CCT La Plata, CONICET-CICPBA)Buenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations