Abstract
One of Aron Gurwitsch’s most important philosophical claims is that every moment of conscious life is structured in a theme, thematic field, margin pattern.1 This thesis allows no exceptions. Regardless of who you are or what you are doing, this is how your field of consciousness is organized. That which is presented as the center or focus of attention is the theme. That which is presented as relevant to the theme is the thematic field. That which is presented as irrelevant to the theme is the margin.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
R. Lind, “Attention and the Aesthetic Object,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, XXXIX, 1 (1980: 131–142)
R. Lind “A Microphenomenology of Aesthetic Qualities,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, XLIII, 4 (1985: 393–403)
R. Lind“The Aesthetic Essence of Art,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, L, 1 (1992: 117–129).
For more on Gurwitsch’s thesis of autochthonous organization in consciousness, see P. S. Arvidson, “On the Origin of Organization in Consciousness,” Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology, 23, no. 1 (1992/Jan: 55–67).
Although a more in-depth analysis of Lind’s aesthetic theory is an interesting project, it is different than the present one. See P. S. Arvidson, “Stability and Achievement in Richard Lind’s Aesthetic Theory,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, LI, 4 (1993: 619–622).
Gurwitsch, FC, p. 341.
Gurwitsch, SPP, pp. 223–224.
Gurwitsch, SPP, pp. 223–224.
Gurwitsch, SPP, p. 228.
Gurwitsch, FC, p. 330.
M. Beardsley uses terms like “unfettered” and “freed” in his description of aesthetic experience. See his “What is an Aesthetic Quality,” in The Aesthetic Point of View (Ithaca and London, 1982, p. 100). Also, H. Osborne [“Aesthetic Perception,” British Journal of Aesthetics, 18, 4, (1978, p. 307)] uses terms like “expansion of awareness” and “peak experiences” in describing aesthetic perception.
E. Bullough, “‘Psychical Distance’ as a Factor in Art and an Aesthetic Principle,” British Journal of Psychology, 5 (1912): 87–98.
Reprinted in Aesthetics: An Introductory Book of Readings, M. Weitz (Ed.) (New York: 1959).
The following studies are representative discussions of the issues: M. Cohen, “Appearance and the Aesthetic Attitude,” Journal of Philosophy, 56 (1959: 915–925)
J. Stolnitz, Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art Criticism (Boston, 1960, especially pp. 32–42)
G. Dickie, “The Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude,” American Philosophical Quarterly, 1, 1 (1964: 56–65)
T. Binkley, “Piece: Contra Aesthetics,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 35 (1976–7: 265–277)
R. A. Schultz, “Does Aesthetics Have Anything to do with Art,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 36 (1978: 429–440).
In discussing Dickie’s views, Shultz’s asks if one can seriously consider something such as an act of kindness an aesthetic object. According to what has been said here, even the perception of an act of kindness is to be considered aesthetic if this field organization and the attendant attitude hold for that perception. See R. A. Schultz, “Does Aesthetics Have Anything to do with Art,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 36 (1978, p. 438).
The present study agrees more with T. Binkley, “Piece: Contra Aesthetics,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 35 (1976–7: p. 268), when he states that “aesthetic experience is not an experience unique to art.”
Witness the controversy over Marcel Duchamp’s “readymades.” According to the present account, Duchamp’s Fountain (a urinal placed on display) may be an art object, but it is not necessarily so. A good orientation to Duchamp’s affect on art criticism is J. Brough’s, “Who’s Afraid of M. Duchamp?” in Philosophy and Art, Studies in Philosophy and the History of Philosophy, Vol. 23, D. O. Dahlstrom (Ed.) (pp. 119–142).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Arvidson, P.S. (1997). Relevance and Aesthetic Perception. In: Evans, J.C., Stufflebeam, R.S. (eds) To Work at the Foundations. Contributions to Phenomenology, vol 25. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5436-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5436-9_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-6287-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-5436-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive