Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art: An Introductory Anthology

The art question is further muddied by yet another distinction, that between definitions of art and accounts of art. 

• For some, the classificatory question is to be answered by a definition such that one can determine, for any X, whether X is a work of art or not.
• For others, to provide an answer to the question of what is art is to give an account of art as a complete practice, which includes making sense of why cultures make and appreciate art, what are the values of art, etc.

Some of the most memorable experiences in life fill us with a profound sense of wonder and awe. Philosophers consider these experiences examples of the sublime.

While experiences of the sublime are often overwhelming and overpowering, overall they are deeply empowering. According to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the sublime empowers us by revealing the greatness (i.e., the sublimity) of our rational minds.

For many people, the sublime is an experience of feeling a deep connection to nature or even a divine reality.[24] Thus, Kant’s decision to locate sublimity in the rational human mind might seem like an inaccurate description of what the experience is really like.

Nonetheless, Kant’s theory of sublimity is an ideal starting point for anyone who wants to philosophize about why we derive aesthetic enjoyment from the experience of overwhelmingly large and powerful phenomena.

Perhaps a combination of these theories can explain what makes something funny:

• The superiority theory of humor: funniness results from feeling superior to another person or at a former version of ourselves.
• The relief theory of humor: venting nervous energy is the primary function of laughter.
• The incongruity theory of humor: humor results from the sudden recognition of dissonance or incongruence where our expectations had prepared us for something completely different.

There is little consensus regarding which theory is best, but this is not uncommon.

Many videogames contain extreme violence, such as brutal killings, that would clearly be wrong if performed in reality. While some people find killing in videogames morally problematic, most people don’t.

• Many people would find child abuse and other sadistic crimes to be wrong, even when only in a videogame.
• But if virtual murder is OK since nobody is actually harmed, why isn’t virtual child abuse also OK, since nobody is actually harmed? Conversely, if virtual child abuse is unacceptable despite harming nobody, why isn’t virtual murder also unacceptable?