Aesthetic Attitude Is A Myth Philosophy Essay

Aesthetic Attitude Is A Myth Philosophy Essay In ‘The Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude’, George Dickie argues that the notion of the aesthetic attitude is a myth and attempts to argue against all forms of the idea. Whilst there are other compelling theories concerning the existence of the aesthetic attitude, he presents a strong case against it, arguing that all attempts to precisely describe such an attitude fail. His argument focuses on the notions of the aesthetic attitude proposed by Bullough and Stolnitz, which I will outline in this essay. Initially, Dickie considers Edward Bullough’s theory of psychical distance. Bullough suggests that in order to obtain an aesthetic attitude and judge an object aesthetically, the subject must distance themselves from that object and separate â€Å"à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the object and its appeal from one’s own self, by putting it out of gear with practical needs and ends.†Ã‚   [ 1 ]   In doing so, Bullough says that â€Å"contemplation of the object becomes al one possible†Ã‚   [ 2 ]   and you are no longer directly involved with the object. Bullough illustrates his idea using his fog at sea example, where he describes how unpleasant and dangerous the fog might seem to a person, but also how beautiful the fog is. Bullough thinks that it is the aesthetic attitude which enables one’s view of the fog to change through a â€Å"transformation by distance†Ã‚   [ 3 ]   as the fog is allowed to â€Å"stand outside the context of our personal needs and ends† and one can look at it objectively. For Bullough, only the right amount of distance enables the aesthetic attitude to be employed and he discusses â€Å"à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦cases in which people are unable to bring off an act of distancing or are incapable of being induced into a state of being distanced.†Ã‚   [ 4 ]   Bullough’s example of â€Å"à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦the jealous husband at a performance of Othello†Ã‚   [ 5 ]   unable to concentrate a s he is thinking of his own wife’s suspicious behaviour demonstrates being under-distanced as the subject is too emotionally involved with the play. Similarly, a light technician working on the play might be over-distanced as he is preoccupied with the lights and missing any emotional involvement with the play itself. Dickie may undermine Bullough’s concept of distance here as he questions whether one can deliberately distance oneself or whether one can be induced into a â€Å"à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦consciousness denoted by being distanced.†Ã‚   [ 6 ]   Dickie undermines the concept of distance here – suggesting that there is no such experience as being distanced – and so undermines Bullough’s theory. Furthermore, Dickie criticises Bullough’s use of new terms referring to distance, as he thinks to introduce these terms â€Å"does nothing but send us chasing after phantom acts and states of consciousness.†Ã‚   [ 7 ]   Dickie infers that â€Å"there is no identifiable psychological experience of being distanced†Ã‚   [ 8 ]   and so no value in Bullough’s idea of distance. Furthermore he suggests that being under or over-distanced is simply being more or less focused on something and just â€Å"two different cases of inattention.†Ã‚   [ 9 ]   Therefore, being distanced means just focusing one’s attention on something and is not a new â€Å"kind of act†Ã‚   [ 10 ]   or special â€Å"state of consciousness†Ã‚   [ 11 ]   .