Fechner's attempt to build an aesthetics from below, admirable in its context, is beset with difficulties. Four kinds are examined here: empirical problems in obtaining clear results, definitional problems in deciding what elements it is appropriate to study, contradictions that follow the establishment of rules of combination, and the ultimate paradox for aesthetics of the certainty of outcomes. They are severe enough to require radically different approaches, some of which are suggested here.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FechnerG. T., Vorschule der Aesthetik, Leipzig, Breitkopf und Haertel, 1897.
2.
BirkhoffG. D., Aesthetic Measure, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1933.
3.
EysenckH. J., Aesthetic Preferences and Individual Differences, in Psychology and the Arts, O'HareD. (ed.), Harvester Press, Brighton, England, 1981.
4.
IversenE., Canon and Proportion in Egyptian Art, Sidgwick and Jackson, London, 1955.
5.
PollittJ. J., Art and Experience in Classical Greece, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1982.
6.
BerlyneD. E., Aesthetics and Psychobiology, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1971.
7.
ChildI. L., Personality Correlates of Esthetic Judgment in College Students, Journal of Personality, 33, pp. 476–511, 1965.
8.
MartindaleC., The Clockwork Muse: The Predictability of Artistic Change, Basic Books, New York, 1990.
9.
SimontonD. K., Genius, Creativity, and Leadership: Historiometric Inquiries, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984.
10.
MeierN. C., Aesthetics as a Measure of Art Talent, University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, 1926.
