The Development of Aesthetics and Art from a Globalized Perspective:Interview with Curtis L.Carter

Curtis L.Carter

HAN Qingyu Shandong University

Abstract:As a famous contemporary aesthetician,Curtis L.Carter focuses on the field of analytic aesthetics,Asian aesthetics,and the dialogue between Eastern and Western culture.He was the president of the International Association for Aesthetics during 2010—2013. In the 21st International Congress of Aesthetics held in Belgrade, Serbia, there was a roundtable discussion on “Curtis Carter and Contemporary Aesthetics.” In this interview, Dr. Carter first speaks about this conference.Then he discusses some important questions regarding analytic aesthetics,especially Arthur C.Danto and No?l Carroll.He insists that what aestheticians should be interested in is not just the language of art,but the role that art plays as a fundamental part of human experience.Curtis Carter has an open attitude toward the subject of aesthetics,believing that it is very important to understand the forms of art that have evolved in Asian culture artistically,and to move toward a globalized perspective.

Keywords:the 21st International Congress of Aesthetics;analytic aesthetics;art education;Asian culture;commensurability

Date:August 7,2019.

Place:Professor Curtis L.Carter's office at Marquette University (Milwaukee,WI,US)

HAN QINGYU (Hereinafter referred to as HAN):Thank you so much for your help and advising in my research.Today I have prepared some questions about the philosophy of art and aesthetics to discuss with you.First,I would like to ask you to introduce the IAA conference you attended last week,especially the discussion of your theory of aesthetics.I think that's of greatest importance.

CURTIS L.CARTER (Hereinafter referred to as CLC):There were four speakers commenting on my work.One speaker,Aless Erjavec from Slovenia,was unable to attend due to illness.Gao Jianping from China,Tyrus Miller from the USA,Eva Man (文潔華) from Hong Kong,and Polona Tratnik from Slovenia participated in the discussion.

Tyrus began the discussion.He pointed out a range of things:the fact that I was able to write both on the theoretical aesthetics and also the area of applications to dance,visual arts,etc.He was mainly commenting on the breadth of my work in different fields,and the fact that I do theoretical work from Hegel to contemporary analytic aesthetics.He also talked about the fact that,while my work did reflect interest in analytic philosophy,I was also able to relate aesthetics to the applied areas of the arts.Building the Haggerty museum,bringing arts to the social service community,working easily between writing about particular arts and theoretical questions show interest in the social applications of aesthetics.These were some of the initial points covered.

After that,Gao Jianping talked about my work in relation to Chinese aesthetics and arts.He thought that I had contributed to understanding the relationship between East and West aesthetics.“I would like here,on behalf of the Chinese Society for Aestheticians to express our sincere gratitude to Professor Curtis Carter for his active participation in the development of Chinese Aesthetics during the past two decades,” he said.

Eva Man,again,mainly talked about my work's relationship with Chinese arts and aesthetics.Polona Tratnik commented again on the various contributions to aesthetics in reference to my leadership in the International Association for Aesthetics.

I will not respond to the commentators one by one.Each has brought forth an important aspect of my work in international aesthetics.There was nothing really negative,all very positive.I responded that if I had to place myself in relation to aesthetic theory,I would probably find myself in the range of pragmatist aesthetics.Pragmatist aesthetics calls for theory that results in some actions of social benefit.It is not enough for me just to do theory.I said that I love doing theoretical research writing.But I also wanted to make a difference in the world beyond academics.I thank the commentators for their insights.

My general impression from attending the conference was that the field of aesthetics appears to be moving in the direction of focus on topics in applied aesthetics.A smaller number of papers that I attended were focused on historical or traditional topics.This may be partly because the Congress took place in a school of architecture,as many of the papers were focused much more on small technical problems rather than big theoretical issues.For the most part,I would say that the quality of papers overall was not as high as in some previous Congresses.There were some very good papers.Some papers seemed to lack theory:for example,discussions of detailed aspects of clips from a film.

It seemed that the bulk of the papers were given by younger scholars,which is very good as the future of aesthetics depends on continuing engagement of younger scholars.Perhaps a number of the people presenting the papers were not brought up on aesthetic theory,but in some related areas.There were numerous papers on architecture,as one would expect when the Congress is hosted by the school of architecture,and they were all good papers.Does this mean that aesthetics is going in a somewhat different direction? Perhaps in the direction of applied issues rather than philosophical aesthetic theory? It seemed as though that might be the case.

A luncheon meeting of the younger Chinese and Japanese scholars to which I was invited took place during the Congress.The young scholars were all in the age group of late twenties or so.We had good conversations with each other.People were really interested in exchanging with each other and having warm and friendly conversations.

HAN:More and more Chinese scholars attended the ICA after the Beijing conference.

CLC:Yes.That's good.Apparently few Americans attended the Belgrade Congress.I saw only four from the American Society of Aesthetics during the Congress.Perhaps the Americans are still engaged within analytic philosophy and don't appreciate the diversity of philosophical cultures that the International Congress of Aesthetics enjoys.

HAN:As you know,I'm more interested in the practice of criticism rather than in theory of criticism.Would you like to introduce the character of criticism of analytic philosophy? For example,Danto's and Carroll's.

CLC:Are you asking me for their views of criticism? Or you ask me for comments on the practices of criticism?

HAN:Can you comment on the practices of art criticism?

CLC:Arthur Danto,of course,trained as an artist and then as a philosopher.Then he began to write criticism as a result of an invitation to one of the leading journals.“As a critic,Danto is receptive to any variations of art such as might appear in a pluralistic art world.On this point,Danto's range of art works of critical interest differs from Beardsley who finds no place in his view of art for the likes of Duchamp's ready-mades or Warhol's Brillo Boxes.He disavows interest in artists whose works purport to represent historical breakthroughs,by presuming that such developments in art history have ended.” Danto was more interested in the character of the particular works and their place as art.In other words,he focuses on particular works and their structural elements.But he's also interested theoretically in the so-called “end of art.” He initially misunderstood Hegel on this question.In formulating his own understanding of “the end of art” Danto reformulated the theory arguing that art,as it had been known as representation,came to an end at the beginning of the twentieth century.By contrast,No?l Carroll is more interested in connecting art criticism to art history.

Later on,in the development of Danto's aesthetic theory,one of the key questions became,“how to distinguish art from non-art?” Hence,the “Brillo box problem.” In order to differentiate art from non-art,it is necessary to have a theory of art.And the theories of art evolve:the representational theory up to modern art was one period.When that came then the field opened up,and new theories were generated.Underlying this development is the idea that criticism requires a philosophy.In other words,a philosophy of art is required to distinguish art from non-art.

HAN:In an interview,No?l Carroll stated that,as a critic,Danto first offered an interpretation of the artwork to say what it is about,and then goes on to show how the artist's choices in the work realize the artist's intent.Are these the general steps of art criticism? First,to say what it is about,and then to show how the artist created the work.

CLC:For Danto,the role of the critic is,first of all,to distinguish what is art and what is not,and then to tell what the art is about.At one point,he says,to be art it has to have a relation to art history.But,as for his understanding of art,I don't think he relies on art's connection to history.“For Carroll,the central goal of art criticism is to provide a rational basis for art appreciation.” Carroll affirms the importance of artists' intentions,in contrast to Beardsley who rejected the intention theory of art.He also argues that connecting of the work to the history of art is important in the criticism.My conclusion is that for Beardsley,the focus is on the particular aesthetic qualities of the artwork itself.For Danto,the critic's attention is on interpreting the meaning attributable to the art,often in the context of an exhibition setting with references to its broader artistic and cultural locale.For Carroll,the focus of criticism is on a particular work,or body of work together with the rational justification of the critic's assessment that constitutes the object of criticism.Left open is the identity of the work itself.

HAN:Regarding the relationship between art and philosophy,you have said that the process of evolution of art theories passes from art as imitation to abstract and to conceptual art,when art becomes the understanding of itself.Do you think it is the final state of the art?

CLC:Perhaps Hegel's approach to the evolving stages of art is helpful here.He shows how art advances through different stages:symbolic,classical,and romantic.States of being then evolve from art to religion and then to philosophy.And the cycle keeps going,with possible reversals to prior states.What's the final state? We're not at the end yet.Hegel leaves open the possibility that a previous stage will become dominant again.For Hegel,the next dominant cultural form could be art again.Is this the last stage? Who knows? Art is a continuously ongoing process.It will have different interests and focuses in different times until,maybe,it'll wear out,but not yet.

HAN:What you said just now is very dialectical.One of your research fields is analytic aesthetics,which ignores or denies the role of natural beauty and the environment in the discipline of aesthetics.At the same time,you have researched topics such as art and nature in Hegel's aesthetics,and you have been invited to attend the International Conference of Eco-Aesthetics,which will be held this October at Shandong University in China.This shows that you have an open attitude toward the subject of aesthetics.What do you think is the relation between the philosophy of art and eco-aesthetics or environmental aesthetics?

CLC:That's the paper I'm writing now.It's not finished.But right now,in my latest version,I'm starting out with Hegel on the relation of art and nature.Then I'm going to an anthropologist who has a very different view.And then I'm taking some particular artworks,and trying to figure out what the contribution of each one is to our understanding of ecology.At least that's where it's going now.

Analytic aesthetics doesn't necessarily ignore the role of natural beauty and environment.It simply says that what's important for philosophical aesthetics is the concept of natural beauty or philosophy,and not natural beauty as an experience.Hegel's view,of course,is much broader.Hegel is interested in substantial issues.He's not just talking about the language of art.He's talking about art as an existing phenomenon in relation to nature.And I'm going to be tying some of that together in my paper.You'll see in a few days,maybe a version of it.

I regard analytic philosophy as a conceptual tool.And I don't agree that the function of aesthetics is simply the analysis of concepts used in aesthetics.There is substance to which the concepts relate.There is art.And what aestheticians should be interested in is not just the language of art,but the role that art plays as a fundamental part of human experience.In other words,creating and appreciating art are among the things that people do to become human.As for nature,there are a number of contemporary scientific views of nature which require consideration as we try to understand ecological issues and how art might relate to them.The environment is where we live.It's the trees,the nature of the streets,the buildings,and so forth.Traditionally we think of nature as the woods,and then build art of whatever else there is.But there aren't too many unbuilt parts anymore.So,the anthropologist that I've been working with talks about three different kinds of nature,for example,one related to the economics,one concerned with techno-nature,and one in terms of its social function.Today,some anthropologists question whether there is a nature apart from nature understood from some points of view,such as an economic one,a technological view,or the environmentalist perspective.

HAN:Yes,I agree with your argument on nature,and I think we need much work on ecoaesthetics.The next question is about the relationship between art education and aesthetic education.I know you have been making efforts concerning art education in Wisconsin and elsewhere in the USA.But I have noticed that what you think and how you approach art education are different from how art education is approached in China.First,although today art education has become more and more important in China,Chinese education concerning art has a long road ahead.What you emphasize is to improve the understanding of the role of art,especially the effect of art in social change,its ability to arouse people's consciousness of innovation,duty,and love.What do you think about the relationship between art education and aesthetic education?

CLC:Art education could be simply teaching people how to make paintings or how to create music,perform music,or how to make photographs.Whereas aesthetic education involves a philosophy of what should be the role of art in our lives.In other words,art education in the schools could be on two different levels.It could be teaching you how to paint or to sing or to dance.Aesthetic education is more about a philosophical notion of what art experiences contribute to our knowledge and our understanding.Aesthetic education is the philosophy that tries to show the place that art has in education as a whole.In other words,you have mathematics,science,and so forth.And aesthetic education is about the place of art in the educational system.

HAN:I think we can take education in the arts as a first step of aesthetic education.Many people are indifferent when they face artworks,because they lack basic knowledge of how to appreciate art.Now I would like to talk about Chinese contemporary art.As I have discussed with you on some other occasions,I consider that much Chinese contemporary art was influenced by Western artistic ideas.Comparing Chinese art with Western art,there are some differences formed by the Chinese factors,especially traditional elements,such as Chinese calligraphy.I know many contemporary artists studied Western art or worked in Western countries.For example,Xu Bing'sBook from the Sky(《天書》):is it more a Western kind of art than Chinese contemporary art? How do we distinguish the identity?

CLC:I'd sayBook from the Sky(《天書》) is definitely Chinese.It's not Western.In other words,he created this work even before he came to the United States.The key symbolic elements in this work are fake Chinese calligraphic forms.One way of understanding Xu Bing'sBook from the Skyis as a commentary on the role of language in Chinese culture.The piece would be very disturbing to Chinese viewers who would be unable to read the calligraphy.

HAN:But I argue that Xu Bing's artwork imitated Western art or a Western idea of art.

CLC:In what way?

HAN:For example,the way he arranged the work in the museum is similar to installation art.But in the Chinese tradition,there was no installation art.

CLC:Maybe not.How about a temple? Is that installation art? I see your point.However,Xu Bing had not been in the United States when he made that piece.His first arrival here was in 1990.It was the first time he had been in Western culture.Now of course he knew something about Western art before that.But the content of the work is not Western.It's highly original conceptual art.At least as a Westerner,I would never think of it as Western.

HAN:But the identity of most Chinese contemporary works of art seems to be more Western.Or,they are influenced by Western ideas.

CLC:What would you say is pure Chinese art?

HAN:Maybe,for example,Chinese calligraphy and literati painting.And how about Pop art in China?

CLC:Well,I agree that Chinese Pop art is influenced by Pop art in the West.But again,it has its own twist.In other words,Chinese Pop art would not be understood in the West in the way it could be understood in China.How about that? Chinese Pop art is different from Western Pop art.The Western Pop art doesn't necessarily carry a political commentary,basically.Chinese Pop art is political,isn't it? That's a very basic difference.

Go back to the Xu Bing example.You see,again,Book from the Skycould be understood as a commentary on language as an important element of Chinese culture.Because the structure of Chinese culture depends on the credibility of its language.And so if you undercut one of the pillars of Chinese culture,you won't understand it.He is raising questions about the entire social structure,which is built substantially on language.And it has a particular kind of language.

Well,I don't think there's anything wrong with Chinese culture being influenced by the West.In other words,we live in a global world,and something can be said favorably,about breaking down the cultural barriers.In other words,as for Xu Bing's workBook from the Sky,I would argue that those pieces are definitely Chinese pieces.AndThe Wall Piece（《鬼打墻》）too,even more.It's raising questions about core foundations of Chinese culture in the world.In other words,the cultural part of it—I mean,understanding the forms that have evolved in Chinese culture artistically—is very important.Those will not go away.But of course,as we move toward a globalized perspective,things can be worked together without necessarily threatening cultural origins.

HAN:Yes.Let's discuss the last question.In your article “Commensurability:Chinese and Western Art and Aesthetics” which I have translated into Chinese,you have pointed out that “Perhaps the most difficult problem facing the transfer of Western concepts in aesthetics into China is the differences in languages between Chinese and Western cultures.” First,I agree with you:although most Chinese scholars in aesthetics have improved their foreign languages (not only English),there are also difficulties and quandaries in the understanding of Western theories.Second,could you talk more about how to improve this situation?

CLC:I would say the problem is how to overcome the tribalism of language.In other words,you inherit language—maybe even biologically,I'm not sure of that—you absorb,as a child in your commune,you take on a language.And you develop nuances and understanding depending on how intelligent you are and how much you can absorb.But unless you grow up with the language,there's always the possibility of misunderstanding.We do have common abilities.We have minds with similar tracks.And sensitivity is biological and social such that we can understand and communicate.But in terms of the complex philosophical concepts,there is where problems arise.We are making progress,but still,language is easy to misunderstand.And the fact that in the past there wasn't so much communication—perhaps one or two Western philosophers went to China until recently,like John Dewey in the 1920s.There wasn't so much exposure.Now it's different.You come here for a year.Certainly,you know much more than when you came before.

HAN:I think so.And the cultural context is important.

CLC:In other words,the communication of important philosophical concepts is difficult even within a language.Ordinary people don't understand philosophical concepts at all,whether it's in China or in the West.People generally do not understand the careful,subtle logic of philosophical discourse.So,you take language one step forward when you have a mind that's trained in a particular language.Now some people are very gifted;they can handle five,six languages.But for most people even trained in philosophy,making those distinctions is difficult.It's not impossible.You know,you studied here in the USA for a year and moved a long way in your understanding of English.In terms of the refinements of the philosophical concepts in English as opposed to Chinese,that's where you struggle.Not impossible,but a challenge.

HAN:Yes,what you said is very good.We should have confidence in the dialogue of cultures between East and West.Thank you very much.