Abstract
Aesthetics as a discourse is fraught with structural ambivalence. But, many of the tensions rooted in the philosophical discipline have metamorphosed into tenets of aesthetic education. The concepts with which scholars violently wrestle in academic arenas, classroom teachers and teaching artists embrace as central to their work with young people. Aesthetic education is recognized as set apart from other modes of teaching and learning by its central focus on interweaving knowledge, intuition, and experience in core subjects of study, through the manipulation of various artistic media, including those pertaining to visual arts, musical forms, language arts, and kinesthetic explorations, like dance or theatre (Eisner, 2002; Greene, 2001). Immanuel Kant theorized aesthetic assessment as disinterested valuation of a universal bent, existing just outside of one’s merely cognitive and merely intuitive faculties. Kant’s Critique of Judgment (1952) originally published in 1790, posits that human assessments fall into two distinct categories, reflective and determinant (determinative). Aesthetic evaluation is reflective in nature, a process that affords individuals the opportunity to personally rectify any number of unknowns. Beyond the nomination of reflection as a criterion for aesthetic response, Kant’s articulations on the subject are highly praised, and widely contested, making his theories of aesthetics (addressed with brevity and simplicity here) fodder for over two centuries of polemics. In particular, three areas of discord within the field of aesthetics resound as specifically relevant to aesthetic education—the relationship of cognition to intuition, negotiations of sensus particularis in light of sensus communis, and the hegemonic implications of a dominant cultural aesthetic.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
van Binsbergen, W. (2002). Sensus communis or sensus particularis. Retrieved from http://www. shikanda.net/general/gen3/kant_afrika.htm Blocker, H. G. (2001). Non-western aesthetics as a colonial invention. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 35(4), 3–13.
Boal, A. (1979). Theatre of the oppressed (C. A. & M. L. McBride, Trans.). London: Pluto Press.
Bullough, E. (1973). Psychical distance. In M. Rader (Ed.), A modern book of aesthetics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Castronovo, R. (2007). Aesthetics. In B. Burgett & G. Hendler (Eds.), Keywords in American cultural studies. New York: New York University Press.
Eisner, E. (2002). The arts and the creation of the mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Greene, M. (2001). Variations on a blue guitar: The Lincoln Center lectures on aesthetic education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kant, I. (1952). The critique of judgment (J. C. Meredith, Trans.). London, UK: Oxford University Press. (Original work published in 1790).
Okot, N. (2008). Acholi culture and customs. MPEG. Gulu, Uganda: Invisible Children Uganda.
O’Neill, C. (1995). Drama worlds: A framework for process Drama. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Yúdice, G. (2007). Culture. In B. Burgett & G. Hendler (Eds.), Keywords in American cultural studies. New York: New York University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cordileone, A. (2011). Negotiating Aesthetics and Culture. In: Schonmann, S. (eds) Key Concepts in Theatre/Drama Education. SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-332-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-332-7_9
Publisher Name: SensePublishers
Online ISBN: 978-94-6091-332-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)