Chapter 2   The Nature of Aesthetics

The Nature of Aesthetics

We  have closed  the first  chapter stating  that with the enhanced  importance of  culture and  art aesthetics  also as a scientific  (and also  practical, educational,  i.e. in the form  of aesthetic  education) discipline  has gained greater importance.  Further  we  shall  consider  the  character  of aesthetics, after that what it can accomplish and then how it can  tackle the  question of  aesthetics both  as the subject matter and in itself.
The reason  for research into these  problems is not quite clear, as  aesthetics is a historical  discipline anchored in ancient Greece. Though it received  its name only in the 18th century, it has thousands of years of undisturbed development behind it. The greatest  philosophers committed themselves to aesthetics and the greatest artists developed it as well. Its position  among  the  sciences,  its  nature,  structure  and functions should  be unequivocally defined  so that the  only problems  in aesthetics  should be  methods of  acquiring new knowledge.
Nevertheless, the  character of aesthetics  has never been unambiguously defined.  This may just be  because of the wide scope of views and interests  of aesthetics, which caused the existence  of a  variety  of  definitions and  limitations of aesthetics,  many   of  them  contradictory.   Aesthetics  as a scientific discipline has not been firmly incorporated into the  system  of  scientific  disciplines  -  it  grew  out of philosophy in the past, and today many variants of aesthetics work closely with  philosophy, for instance, existentialistic aesthetics.   Other   variants,   however,   dissociate  from philosophy  very  radically   and  construct  programatically non-philosophical, even  anti-philosophical, aesthetics (e.g. the  tradition  of   M.  Bense's  informational  aesthetics). Aesthetics as developed by students  of fine arts and artists sticks rather to artistic material, and thus adjoins artistic expression  or coincides  the analysis  of fine  arts as, for instance, with P. Francastel.
Aesthetics  is aware  of  this  situation and  attempts to redefine  its  position  among  the  sciences.  Its  problem, nevertheless,  remains unchanged  - it  is not  historically, unshakably  rooted and  is  made  to redefine  constantly its identity (nature), which has doubt constantly cast upon it.
The definition  of its own  identity is closely  connected with   the   difficulties   of   characterizing   aesthetics. Methodological  problems   complicate  the  process   of  the self-identification  of aesthetics,  and its  ambiguity makes difficult  the  systematic  employment  of  certain  methods. Aesthetics  constantly   vaccilates  about  whether   to  use philosophical, historical, analytic  or reflexive methods. It grew  out of  philosophy and  therefore philosophical methods are still close to it.  It works with art-historical material and  therefore  it  cannot   avoid  historical  and  analytic methods. Philosophical  speculation does not  comply with it, and, for this reason, in the  second half of the 20th century it has  completely relied on analytic  methods, also adopting several  methods from  the natural  sciences, mathematics and psychology. Artists  that develop aesthetics  often work with a reflection in  which they combine  philosophical reflection with  the  expression  of   their  own  artistic  programmes. Aesthetics perceives  that it can  profit from each  of these methods  and therefore  employs this  and that,  which causes considerable  problems  as  it  is  sometimes  impossible  to intertwine  them  into  one  meaningful whole. Methodological problems are also caused by the  fact that the objects of its interest  (works  of  art,  aesthetic  perception,  aesthetic values, kitsch, and the like) can be approached in their full depth  through experiences  and emotions  rather than through ordinary  scientific methods.  Scientific, i.e. rationalistic and  objectivistic, methods  only deform  and schematize  the objects  of aesthetics.  So even  though aesthetics  tries to create  experimental  conditions  for  its  research it, too, deforms its subject matter -  because to the peculiarities of aesthetic experiences belongs a  variety of cultural contexts and  connotations, which  become levelled  in an experimental situation.
Many  problems  have  been  created  by aesthetics itself. According to S. Morawski, aesthetics  has attempted to act as a hermetic discipline in the  last two centuries, enclosed in the aristocratic heights of  supreme culture. It has rejected dealing  with  ordinary  and  less  valuable  matters;  it is attentive  only or  predominantly to  so-called high  art and so-called cultural values.25  In this case it is  not able to deal with the problems of kitsch, mass culture, fashion, etc. and only  clumsily refers to  them because it  has worked out neither methods for their  analysis nor categories. Those are the problems that  set culture into motion today,  and not to deal with them means slackening the development of culture.
The  problems of  aesthetics  are  the consequence  of the unequivocal nature of its subject  matter, what it can and is to deal with. If it moves closer to philosophy and deals, let us say, with   aesthetic activities and  aesthetic consciousness,  philosophy may  oppose saying  these are  the subjects in the focus of  its interests. If aesthetics deals, for instance,  with the structure and  construction of a work of art, then the art disciplines may protest that these areas belong  to  them  because   they  are  equipped  with  better worked-out  methods  appropriate  for  the  analysis  of  the structure of an artwork. Aesthetics has to justify constantly its  existence  in  confrontation  with  philosophy  and  art disciplines.
Aesthetics has not  yet come to terms with  the problem of its normativeness  or liberalness. It  passed through periods (such as classicism) when it intended to prescribe strict and firm standards for artistic creativity, and today it is going through a period when it  is extremely difficult to set forth any  standards  at  all.   Despite  the  present  experience, standardization tendencies still  survive, because aesthetics admits only unwillingly an openness in its criteria. Even the socio-cultural practice does  not enable it to do  so, for we ourselves  constantly  witness  long-standing  but  also  new disputes on  taste; even the  practice of art  criticism does not afford standards though  it itself needs certain criteria for aesthetic values.
All  these  inner  ambiguities   cause  aesthetics  to  be constantly exposed  to attack from  all sides accusing  it of uselessness   and   disfunction.   To   philosophy  it  seems philosophical  only inconsistently,  though the philosophical ambitions of aesthetics may be  traced. To the student of art it appears much  too speculative and is not  exact enough. To artists it appears quite useless, because it does not provide them with  advice or instruction for  their creation. And the lay  public see  no practical  reason for  dealing with  such abstract themes as those of aesthetics.
Despite  the  more   than  2500-year-long  development  of aesthetics,  aestheticians still  argue about  its nature and structure and what its purpose is. When defining it, they are often   in  the   dark  or   they  produce   only  incomplete definitions,  which prove  to be  untrue and  too narrow over time.
In this  paper we do not  harbour an ambition to  solve the problem  of defining  aesthetics. We  will only  endeavour to describe  its  nature  in  a  positive  way, highlighting its transformation   throughout   history   and   recording   its contemporary appearances.  By this attempt we  do not mean to impose  definitional limitations,  but  what  we mean  to put forward is a brief description of its various manifestations. We also  do not intend  to consider the  problem of which  of them is correct,  true or vital, as this  is not necessary to solve  now. If  we want  to reflect  various perspectives  of aesthetics   within  the   cultural  boom   and  in  cultural education, we  have to record  the widest multiformity  of it possible; otherwise a grave error might result from excluding any  of them  just because  it does  not suit  the limits  of a definition  at the  moment. What  can happen,  then, if  it proves to be useful in a new situation?

A. Variants of Aesthetics

Aesthetics presents itself first of all as a philosophical discipline.  That  first  of  all  means  most frequently, as aesthetics  grew  out  of  philosophy  and  for centuries has cherished an  ambition to become  a philosophical discipline. What does  it mean, when speaking  of a scholarly discipline, to   possess  a   philosophical  character,   to  work   like philosophy?
The character of a science is given by its subject matter, categories and methods by which  it assesses reality, its own subject matter. Is it possible to treat the subject matter of aesthetics as related and analogous  to the subject matter of philosophy,  and, next,  does aesthetics  work with  the same categories and methods as philosophy?
Specifically  philosophical procedures  are these currently identified as being only  freely bound with empiric analysis, inductive procedures  of challenging laws  through empiricism and  experiment.  Philosophy  rendered  this  way  is not the generalization  of knowledge  and does  not rest  immediately upon  empiric facts  but, from  the very  beginning, develops only from its own theoretical basis. Though empiric knowledge is  mediated by  other specialized  sciences, they  engage in other problems  than philosophy, and  philosophy begins where their  methods   do  not  reach.   Theoretical  philosophical knowledge spans the chasm from  hypothesis to theory, but its aim is  not to create  exact theoretical models  of objective reality. Philosophical abstraction in a classical sense moves on a high level of generality and relates to empiric material only  in a  mediated way   (not directly).  If we  assume the problem of its "speculativeness"  to be a problem appropriate to  one way  of thinking  (deduction), in  collaboration with others  (e.g. concretization),  the gateway  to a  more exact outline of the nature of philosophical thinking and therewith also  of  aesthetics  as  a  philosophical  discipline is the result. Before we proceed  towards reflections on the methods and  procedures  of  aesthetics,  we  shall  stop  briefly to consider  the problem  of  the  subject matter  of philosophy - how it relates to the  subject matter of aesthetic studies. The  character of  science is  derived from  its own  subject matter, and therefore the subject matter of aesthetics should be decisive for its own philosophical character.
If the subject matter of a defined, specialized science is to  treat  the  subject   matter  of  philosophy,  then  this specialized   science   should   pose   itself  philosophical questions, the most universal questions  of man, what a being is, what a human is, what the meaning of life is, etc. Though they  are  questions  solved  by  every  specialized  science through  its own  tools, only  philosophical disciplines  ask themselves the questions in their universal forms explicitly, and also only they answer  them. In this sense, are ontology, epistemology  and  axiology   thus  occupied.  Aesthetics  as a philosophical  discipline  is  also  constanly  occupied by these questions;  for instance, when  it thinks of  aesthetic consciousness, it asks about how  it reflects being, with art it speaks about the revelation of being through art, and with the problems of aesthetic perception and catharsis aesthetics asks about the sense of aesthetic and moral values, etc. What is important is not the process of asking these questions but the fact that the solution of many aesthetic problems depends on  their outcome.  For instance,  the structure  of artistic creation will be assessed differently if we understand art as the revelation of  the truth of being or  as the knowledge of reality.
Out of the inevitability of asking philosophical questions also  the  necessity  of   the  employment  of  philosophical categories is generated -  otherwise aesthetics will not have a means for answering philosophical  questions. What wet have in mind is not their  inner suppositional employment, but the fact   that   philosophical   categories   should  stand  out explicitly as terms which are employed (which are not only in the  background of  analysis  as  a general  notional basis). Aesthetics is  such a discipline  because it currently  works with  categories of  subject and  object (aesthetic  subject, aesthetic  object),   value  (both  aesthetic   and  artistic values),  existence (expression  of the  existence of  man in art) and with others.
Aesthetics  as  a  philosophical  discipline  is therefore connected  directly with  philosophy through  the problems it solves   (i.e.  questions   it  advances)   and  through  the categories it employs to do so. We may conclude based on this that aesthetics can apply the philosophical methods mentioned above.
Initially  in  aesthetics,  the  idealizational  method  is developed,  e.g.,  when  analyzing  artistic  creation,  when abstracting  from  a  variety  of  individual  appearances of creation and  when studying it in  an ideally structured form (artist - artistic means - and the arising work of art). Then it  inevitably concretizes  this ideal  structure in  various concrete forms (in a happening,  e.g., the artistic means may be identical with the originating work, etc.). The categories philosophical aesthetics  employs thus speak  about Webberian ideal  types  of  objects  which  aesthetics  brings about by a simultaneous gradual concretization to reality (we identify with  the  method  of   idealization  and  concretization  as described  by the  Poznan  methodological  school, led  by J. Kmita).  A closer  notional specification  of ideal  types of objects   in   aesthetics   occurs   also  through  inference (deduction),  which absorbs  empirical data  according to the nature   of   the   problem   studied.   As   it  is  in  all non-formalized  and  non-axiomatized  scientific disciplines, aesthetic  knowledge   does  not  stem   from  several  basic categories with absolute certainty. When developing aesthetic knowledge  the elementary  categories are  completed by other suppositions, by other aesthetic knowledge. This knowledge is not necessarily  manifested in reasoning  but it can  acquire the appearance of a supposition possibly not generally known, but knowledge  can rise only from  the author's conception of given conclusions, maybe quite  originally defined before. In any case,  this supposition enters  into the creation  of new knowledge.  Another  component  of  the  methods  adopted  by aesthetics  is   philosophical  abstraction,  i.e.   such  an abstraction from  various levels of  phenomena as generalizes on-going  processes  in  reality  to  a  maximal level. As in philosophy  it means  generalization of  processes concerning the  subject-matter of  philosophy, it  means universal being and  man.  In  the  case   of  aesthetics  it  means  maximal generalization concerning its subject matter. It means beauty and art.
Aesthetics  conceived  as  a  philosophical  discipline is related to philosophy through  its subject matter, categorial apparatus and  methods. It is  also such an  aesthetics whose ambitions  are  to  be  and  work  as  a  science;  from  the definition of  the subject and individual  terms to the exact application  of  methods.  (This  ambition  is mentioned here because  later  we  shall  meet  other  relationship  between aesthetics  and philosophy.)  The relation  of aesthetics  to philosophy  is  the  oldest   and  most  frequent,  appearing throughout its history.
Aesthetics is sometimes understood as a direct compound of philosophy,  as  one  of  the  philosophical sciences besides ontology,  axiology,  ethics  and  others.  Sometimes  it  is conceived as an independent  science detached from philosophy and  employing   only  several  categories   and  methods  of philosophy. The boundary between  them is not strictly fixed. Their detachment  is possible in  several ways, by  different subject matter and methods.  Doubtless, the subject matter of aesthetics differs  from the subject  matter of philosophical studies,  the latter  focusing on  existence as  a whole  and practically all  aspects of the life  of man while aesthetics is able to  follow only aesthetic and artistic  values in the life  of  man  and  nature.  Its  subject  is  therefore much narrower and  for this reason  much closer to  visual reality than the subject matter of  philosophy. The difference of its subject matter  enables aesthetics to apply  methods that are unaccessible  to philosophy  because they  are only partially useful  for it;  aesthetics  may  organize its  own empirical research which is unaccessible  to philosophy. Aesthetics may also  apply  mathematic  methods  which  may  be relevant for philosophy   only   after   having   been   filtered  through generalizations   by   other   sciences,   e.g.,  physics  or economics.
From  general  aesthetics  as  a  philosophical discipline so-called special  branches of aesthetics,  (e.g., aesthetics of theatre, aesthetics of environment, aesthetics of fashion, etc.)  have  sprung.  Unlike  philosophical  aesthetics which understands art  as a single phenomenon  for which individual arts  create  just  a  sequence  of suitable illustrations,26 special  aesthetics  have  separated  in  order  to  describe peculiarities  of individual  kinds  of  art. They  move much closer  to  the  art  material  than philosophical aesthetics does, which  also influences the choice  of methods they work with -  they also employ methods  of individual art histories (analyses of  works of art, empirical  gathering of material, etc.).   Their  professional   relations  vaccilate   between philosophy and some of the specialized scholarly disciplines, but  basically  they  preserve   two  appearances:  one  more general, closer to philosophy  and arts' methods of thinking, the other more empiric and  closer to art histories. Only the first variant belongs to  philosophical aesthetics, the other is a component of the other variant of aesthetics on the rise today - exact and experimental aesthetics.
As aesthetics has always had  ambitions to be and and work as  a science,  pressure from  the stormy  development of the natural sciences since the 19th century has caused aesthetics to stop to consider philosophy and philosophical abstractions for  its  ideal.  Since  the  19th  century  it has preferred methods used  by the natural  sciences: empiricism, analysis, experiment and formal methods.  Another variant of aesthetics begins  to grow  - exact  and experimental  aesthetics, which unequivocally  condemns philosophical  approaches as  useless speculation. Before anything else it grew as a consequence of the change of methods but also as a result of the fast change of subject matter and  categorial apparatus. Though the basic division  of the  subject  matter  of exact  and experimental aesthetics  remains  identical  with  that  of  philosophical aesthetics -  beauty, works of art,  aesthetic perception and the like - it is,  nevertheless, concretized according to the discipline  that various  versions of  this aesthetics relate to.
The  first  and  the  most  widespread  relation  of  this aesthetics  is that  to psychology.  "Its roots  are found in experimental  psychology  and  the  uncovering  of functional relations  between  stimulus  and  reaction variables."27 The relation  extends from  asking questions  analoguous to those asked in  psychology (e.g., how  the aesthetic perception  of man changes  under the influence of  various stimuli, and the like)  to the  complex employment  of psychological  methods, predominantly experimental.
This is  the aesthetics which  had functioned fully  since G.T.   Fechner's   experiments    and   then   continued   as sociologically  oriented,  psychoanalytical,  art-historical, semiological, informational and  cybernetic aesthetics in the 1960s.  Whenever  it  connected  with  any  of  the  positive sciences,  it   appropriated  its  categories   and  methods. Psychological  aesthetics,  therefore,  has  worked with such categories as empathy,  perception, fantasy, sensitivity, and it explicitly prefers psychological experiments. Sociological aesthetics works with categories such  as work and the social stratum,  and it  employs sociological  methods of  analysis, though the  questionnaire method and interview  are used very rarely.  Psychoanalytical  aesthetics   employs,  of  course, categories such  as unconsciousness, sublimation,  dream, and in its  analysis it returns to  the artist's childhood, seeks archetypes  in art  works, etc.  In the  1960s and  the 1970s extensively  spread  semiological  aesthetics  analyzed  sign structures,   then  informational   aesthetics  speaks  about aesthetic   processes   as   information   transmission,  and cybernetics  attempted to  model aesthetic  processes. In all instances,  there  is  a  visible  and  successful effort for maximal scientifism, which means respect for facts, exactness and verification of hypotheses. (We  are not going to analyze the  limitations  of  the   term  scientifism  which  similar research  relies on,  as we  would exceed  the limits of this paper).
In comparison with  philosophical aesthetics its functions have also changed. Philosophical aesthetics has had ambitions to find universally valid laws of art and beauty, but the aim of exact  and experimental aesthetics is  to seek and explain facts,  to seek  regularities valid  for a  certain group  of facts. It  does not intend  to complete the  knowledge of art and beauty  as philosophical aesthetics  subconsciously does, but it wants  to provide data for the  further development of art,  aesthetic   education,  for  the   extension  of  human knowledge   and  for   art  criticism.   Its  functions   are purposefully limited  by the effort  of sticking strictly  to facts.
Now  it  is  necessary  to  refer  again  to the so-called specialized  aesthetic studies,  explicitly to  appearance of being  closer   to  art  histories  and   to  psychology  and physiology as  well. Their subject matter  does not basically differ  from  special   aesthetic  studies  of  philosophical character; however,  the difference between  them is grounded predominantly in  the methods they use  for approaching their subject   matter.  Specialized   aesthetic  studies  oriented towards empiricism and exactness employ the complete spectrum of methods mentioned above.
During  the last  twenty  years  one independent  branch of aesthetics  has  developed  out  of  exact  and  experimental aesthetics  -  interdisciplinary  aesthetics.  Its  rise  was already  encoded in  exactly oriented  aesthetics, which,  in order to  increase its own quality,  co-opted other scholarly disciplines and relied on  them for knowledge, categories and methods.   In   this   way   it   laid   the  foundation  for interdisciplinary   cooperation.  Only   in  the   1970s  did aesthetics realize that cooperation with one or two scholarly disciplines will not suffice, because aesthetic phenomena and processes are much more  complicated. Moreover, it has proven that  procedures adopted  from the  hitherto natural sciences deform   reality,  as   aesthetics  has   chosen  only  those procedures   based   on   classically   conceived  exactness. Classically conceived exactness was  constructed on the basis of  empirical  research,  experiments  of  various  kinds and through the formalized language  of science. Exactness was in fact reduced to Bacon's inductive model: it was guaranteed by an exact  procedure from the empiric  fundamentals of science to  theoretical generalization.  This exactness  was based on a close relationship to material, analysis, induction, tests, logical  formalism and  mathematical structures.  A scholarly discipline gets too much enclosed in its subject matter, and, though it is  very exact in its own  framework, it is inexact in the general  context of its knowledge because  it does not take into consideration all relationship existing outside its own subject matter.
It  turns  out  that  exactness  should  be constructed in a completely  different  way  -  through  the  intercourse of various  scholarly  branches  and  disciplines, through their mutual completion, through the complexity of the image of the studied  subject.   In  this  way,   the  conceived  research exactness  does  not  result  only  from  the  search for new methodological  possibilities  of  a  certain  science. Here, exactness  issues from  the acceptance  of the  nature of the studied  subject, from  the acceptance  of its  multifaceted, multidisciplinary nature.
Therewith, contemporary exactness,  whose nature is better characterized by  the term interdisciplinarity,  was created. It  is not  ordinary interdisciplinarity,  the employment  of several  humanities.  For  non-classically  exact  knowledge, interdisciplinarity which concentrates  in itself humanities, natural, mathematic and technical sciences but also practical disciplines (e.g. medicine)  beside aesthetics is inevitable. It does  not follow the  creation of frontier  disciplines as does the psychology of art but as the intercourse of methods, hypotheses and knowledge structures of independent scientific disciplines. Aesthetics also realized another important fact. "This  endeavour  requires  the  cooperation  of  speculative scholars   who   interpret   the   context   of  artwork  and experimental  aestheticians  who  can  study  encounters with artworks in  organized ways."28 It realized  the necessity of close  cooperation not  only between  exact and  experimental sciences  but also  with philosophy,  even speculative,  i.e. philosophical aesthetics. Therefore, though interdisciplinary aesthetics arose  from exact and  experimental aesthetics, it is  a   new  quality,  because   of  cooperation  with   even nonscholarly philosophical abstraction.
These appearances of aesthetics  are not firmly related to some  other   scholarly  discipline  because   the  scope  of cooperating  sciences changes  from one  type of  research to another - and before the beginning of any research it is only possible to outline which disciplines will participate in it. Which of  them really do  participate is always  indicated by the nature of the studied  subject, explicitly by the problem researched.  For  this  reason,  aesthetics  is  at  one time related to  the categorial apparatus  of psychology, then  to the methods  of philosophy, etc.  New aesthetics arises  here and  its  character  is  not  settled  in advance; aesthetics participating  in interdisciplinary  research is  open to the development  of   its  own  philosophical   speculations  and exclusively empiric or exact  procedures. The relationship to so many diversified scholarly  disciplines is what enables it to  construct   it  own  inner   relations  among  the   most diversified ways of thinking.
In an interdisciplinary context,  the nature of aesthetics is open and methodological, and problem flexibility is one of its characteristic signs. It  is accompanied by the endeavour to  be  always  scientific,  which  means  analytic,  relying predominantly on  facts, rational and  purposeful the aim  of which is to  construct such pieces of knowledge  as which may be adopted without greater problems in artistic culture or in aesthetics education.
Though the three hitherto  mentioned variants of aesthetics differ in  many respects, they share  one property: they want to be a  science, which means they strive  to implant as many attributes of scientifism as possible into themselves (always understood according  to the criteria  of a certain  period). The two  other appearances which  we shall treat  here do not have  any ambition  to acquire  the attributes  of a science, according  to  neither  classical  nor  non-classical  modern criteria of scientifism. Their  ends are somewhere else. They do  not  intend  to  construct  closed  or  relatively closed knowledge systems, nor do they strive for maximally objective knowledge;  they  want  to  work  in  society  for  different reasons. Their functions are also constructed in a completely different way. Despite these  facts, we still have aesthetics in front of us.
The  first  of  these  is  constructed  as a reflection of universal  values,  which  means  a  reflection  of aesthetic values and the  place of man in them.  By reflection we mean, according to K. Jaspers, such a process of thought as differs from objectivistic  and causally aimed  scientific knowledge. He  believes  that  science  studies  truth  which is what is independent   from   the   being   of   the   scientist.  The philosophizing  aesthetics  asks  about  being  that  one can perceive  thank to  the fact  that he  is what  he is. He can recognize being  only in that way  as he is in  his own self. Philosophical science depends therefore on  his being - it is his  Self's  affirmation.29   This  philosophical  reflection (different   from  the   scientifically  oriented  philosophy mentioned  above)  is  the  reflection  oriented  towards the realization of the place of man in the world, the affirmation or doubting of his existence, his life and his values. Unlike science, we do  not abstract from the known  subject, but the standpoints  of the  subject are  purposefully implanted into reflection.   It   is   the   self-reflective  activity  of thought."30 This  way constructed aesthetics is  not and does not want to be a scientific analysis of beauty or a structure of  artwork. It  does not   think of  aesthetic values  in an objectivistic  way but  always relates  them to  the man  who holds them - it does  not suppress the cultural background of man, individual  needs of man,  individual worldview, but  it reflects art  and beauty from their  standpoint. It does want to supply  universally valid (or  at least relatively  valid) knowledge of  art and beauty,  to supply definite  answers to human questions. It does not aim outwards, to art and beauty, but  inwards,  towards  the  relationship  of  man to art and beauty. This aesthetics follows  that line of philosophy that started  with  Socrates  in  his  method  and sense of asking questions (a  tradition which later  empiric and experimental European  science suppressed).  It cultivates self-reflection in man, deepens the recognition  of his position in the world of aesthetic and art values.
This appearance of philosophy  is unequivocally related to philosophy but - as it is  evident - not to that tradition of philosophy whose  ambition is to  become science but  to that one whose end it to  become a personal, subjective reflection of  the  world,  a  reflection  of  personal life values. Its success  is  not  measured  by  the  depth  of  knowledge  of objective laws of aesthetic values but the usefulness of this reflection for man.
The categorial apparatus of  this variant of aesthetics is practically  identical with  that of philosophical-scientific aesthetics,  but  with  a  difference  -  it  suppresses  the objective  contents  of   terms  and  categories;  concerning individual terms it prefers  rather their importance for man, for his value systems.  Also, methods employed by reflexively oriented aesthetics  recede from strictly  logical deduction, strict idealization and concretization. The choice of methods is not  primarily set forth  by the character  of the subject matter spoken about, but by the needs of the studied subject. Though  the  aesthetic  processes  (e.g.  artwork) are spoken about in the foreground and in the background, the aim proper of  such  utterances  remains  -  man  and  his  relation  to aesthetic  processes. The  aim is  not the  generalization of knowledge acquired  by art history or  other disciplines, but an account of man. The  empiric facts are treated more freely than in scientifically  oriented aesthetics, their processing is not directed by the inner  character of fact but the inner character  and  structure  of   values  acknowledged  by  one reflecting upon them.  Every new fact is at  first related to the life of the subject  and only then, secondarily, to other facts.  It is  a different  process of  thinking than that of scientifically oriented  aesthetics - a  procedure which also absorbs  figurative  thinking,   associations,  emotions  and imagination  of the  one reflecting,  his cultural background and other contexts. For these reasons it cannot very strictly observe scientific methods. Neither  of the contradictions we referred to  when speaking about  methodological difficulties of aesthetics exist here; the fact that the subject matter of aesthetics in its depth is accessible only through individual experience  does not  matter here,  because these  individual experiences  are  incorporated   into  reflection.  The  last appearance  of  aesthetics  dealt  with  in  in literature is a freely meditating, essayist reflection whose aim is not the general evaluation  of the relation between  man and art, man and beauty, as  it was with the previous  variant. The aim of this  variant of  aesthetics is  the reflection  of one's own artistic  creation  by  the  artist,  or  expression  of  his artistic  intention,  etc.  -   it  is  an  "autointerpretive theory,"31   currently    called   programmatic   aesthetics. Programmatic  aesthetics  starts  where  the  artist verbally explicates  his  feelings  and   intentions  leading  to  the creation of artwork. It  may acquire multifarious appearances and  has existed  in artistic  culture since  ancient Greece, because even  artists in antiquity  felt the need  to reflect upon   their   creation.   According   to   M.   Lamač,   the autointerpretive  aesthetic theories  of an  artist may  have (and also have) this appearance. Firstly, aesthetic thinking, which  is  a  fully  valued  component  of the whole artistic process not only of artistic creation. We can add to M. Lamač 's ideas  that aesthetics constructed this  way has developed its functionality in the 20th  century, when the artist's own ideology, meaning his own theory of creation and functions of his  artwork,  has  become  a  fully  valued component of his artwork, which otherwise cannot  be understood. Second, it is a paraphrasing of artistic emotions, the linguistic analog of the  artwork. Third,  the theoretical  equivalent of artistic creation is when the artist is prolific both as an artist and theoretician and  creates the whole systematic  theory of his art's creation  (not only of an  individual artwork). Fourth, it is an analysis of methodology of his artistic creation and his  own  means  of  expression,  which  is a theory directed towards the  viewer and art criticism.  Fifth, manifestos and programmes of  artistic creation of an  individual artist, or more  frequently  of  a  group,  are  advanced  ahead or they reflect the  intentions of an  artist; the final  form of the artwork  does  not  always  correspond  with  the  intentions expressed in manifestos. Sixth, aesthetic scientific theories go beyond  the limits of programmatic  aesthetics and fulfill those  functions as  other  variants  of aesthetics  do; with programmatic  aesthetics  they   communicate  that  they  are created by artists.
According to Jaroslav Volek, programmatic aesthetics often formulates its  principles as quite  intentionally one-sided, and  it  does  not  cherish  ambitions  to become universally valid.32   In   many   cases   it   very   strongly  suggests standardization, because the artists set forth the programmes of  their  creation  as  standards  for  the  construction of supreme  art  values.   One-sidedness  and  the  standardized character of  this aesthetics does not  cause any hindrances; on  the  contrary,  it  inspires  the  development  of  other appearances  of  aesthetics  and  also  artistic  creation in itself;   it   also   plays   an   important   role  for  the self-realization  and self-reflection  of an  artist. It  is, too, a very precious document  for deeper understanding of an artist and his times because  it is unspokenly clear and full of the artist's personal engagement. It is not a substitution for the work itself, and it  cannot be considered as the only basis  for the  evaluation of  the work  either. It  may only serve as a basis for a higher quality of aesthetic perception or for better instructed art criticism.
The  categorial  apparatus  of  programmatic aesthetics is highly  diversified. With  respect to  the fact  that artists reflect the whole scale of their creation in their programmes and  interpretations of  their creation,  we should  not feel surprised to find terminology  from very different spheres of human knowledge and activities; it  is possible to start with aesthetic and  art-historical terminology, then  pass over to psychological (reflections  of the artist's  own emotions and images and  the viewer's perception  as well), after  that to sociological and socio-political  (reflections on the purpose of  creation  and  art),  then  to  cultural  and  historical (reflections   of  one's   own  position   in  the   cultural tradition), and finish with  economic (reflections on the art market) and  intuitively created terminology. It  is usual to employ terms and categories  in contexts different from those for  which  they  were   originally  created,  e.g.  economic terminology through the reflection  of processes of creation. This   is  understandable   because  construction   of  these aesthetics  is not  ruled by   facts and  reality but  by the artist's intentions  - quite justifiably it  does not respect the external relationships of phenomena. Its primary and main relation is not directed  towards other scholarly disciplines (though it  collaborates with them) but  reaches out of them, towards art.
The end  of programmatic aesthetics is  also the source of the  methods it  works with.  They are  as diversified as the terminology, though  the core of  the methods employed  is in intuition  and self-expression.  It does  not reject  general values reflection, it is  close to philosophical abstraction, to  art-historical analyses,  journalism, and  it can  employ even sociological  or psychological methods.  The results are also very diversified - they cover a wide range of genres. As the   core   of   the   methods   lies   in   intuition   and self-expression, they  usually result in  essays, which often border  art  literature,  but  we  can  also find specialized scholarly analyses.
Those  five variants  of aesthetics  discussed above exist and co-exist usually  in peace. From time to  time we witness fierce fire  from one side  against the other,  but generally they  tolerate or  at least   do not  attack one  another. It happens  that some  of them  exclude others  as redundant and then ignore them.
Despite the fact that we still speak about one aesthetics, its individual variants differ quite visibly. The differences can be clearly  seen in the following schemes  (viz. the next page).
The  methods  of  the  individual  variants  of aesthetics depend  on  the  subject  their  creators  want to treat. The object of their interest moves  from the most general laws of beauty  and art  to the  expression of  their intentions  but remains in the  framework of interest in art  and beauty. The scheme  shows  the  differences  by  means  of  one  area  of aesthetics problematics  - the problematics of  art (viz. the next page).
Both the methods and the object of interest derive finally from  the  purpose  and  functions  the  given  variant is to fulfill for the creator and  his social and cultural context. Schematically these differences can be expressed as follows.

Structure of aesthetics according to methods
aesthetics as  philosophical science	•	philosophical abstraction and deduction, idealization and concretization	
aesthetics as exact science	•	psychological methods of experimentation
•	linguistic methods of analysis
•	mathemtic methods of formalization and many others	
aesthetics as interdisciplinary science	•	experimentation, analysis, induction and other methods	
aesthetics as value reflection	•	reflection	
programmatic aesthetics	•	mainly intuition and self-expression, often philosophical methods and many others	

Structure of aesthetics according to the subject matter
aesthetics as  philosophical science	•	universal laws of art	
aesthetics as exact science	•	artistic phenomena and structures	
aesthetics as interdisciplinary science	•	art from any aspect	
aesthetics as value reflection	•	artistic values in relation to man	
programmatic aesthetics	•	artistic programmes in relation to man	

Structure of aesthetics according to purpose
aesthetics as  philosophical science	•	universal explanation of art: ULTIMA RATIO	
aesthetics as exact science	•	exact explanation of art: FORMALIZATION, CAUSALITY	
aesthetics as interdisciplinary science	•	complex explanation of art: INTEGRALITY, SYNERGY	
aesthetics as value reflection	•	understanding and expression of relation of man to art: VALUE, SIGNIFICANCE	
programmatic aesthetics	•	expression of own programme: EXPRESSION (ENDEAVOUR AT CAUSALITY)	

We can  see the clear structure  of aesthetics according to purposes of  its individual variants. We  have completed each variant  by   a  brief  description   of  its  purposes   and endeavours:   ULTIMA   RATIO   means   that   aesthetics   as a philosophical  science  seeks  the  absolute,  ultimate and deepest basis of art behind  which it is neither possible nor necessary  to learn. FORMALIZATION and  CAUSALITY mean  that aesthetics  as  an  exact   science  endeavours  to  lead  to maximally possible formalization  of cognitive algorithms and seeks firm cause-and-effect relations in art. INTEGRALITY and SYNERGY mean that aesthetics  in an interdisciplinary context seeks a complex  image of art while it  considers the maximal diversity of  contexts and functions.  VALUE and SIGNIFICANCE mean that  this aesthetics seeks  for the meaning  of art for man  and  his  values  context.  EXPRESSION  and ENDEAVOUR AT CAUSALITY  mean  that  programmatic  aesthetics endeavours to express  artistic intentions  and emotions  while leading  to constructing  this  theoretical  self-expression  as a casual chain where the effects and  results of artistic activity are the  consequence  of   pronounced  and  articulated  artistic intentions.
As we have seen in other instances, the presented variants of aesthetics  are not a disjointed  set, but they intertwine in their methods and purposes, consequently in knowledge and, of course,  in categorial apparatus. The  question of whether it is  still a unified (or  one) scientific discipline arises when   we   observe   such   a   diversified  complex.  Their intertwining and the extreme closeness of the subject matters studied (all of them study beauty  and art) may suggest it is only one discipline. Principal  doubts arise in relation with the  two-in-one  function  (consequently  with the two-in-one ambitions)  of  aesthetics:  on  the  one  hand it is active, structured and endeavours  to be a science; on  the other, it is  neither  ambitious  nor  structured  as  a science but as a reflection of human, or especially artistic, needs, desires and  emotions,  respectively.  This  structure  of aesthetics might result in  the opinion that only the  former is science and  the  latter  is  not.   And  this  would  cause  serious consequences  for  the  employment  of  aesthetics  in  civic education and  for the contemporary cultural  boom. Only with difficulty would we be able to seek the cultural dimension in civic education by means of aesthetics if it were to or could present itself only as science. In this case aesthetics could only analyze  contemporary situations, not be  able to affect them actively.
We  shall get  rid of  the doubts  of its  still being one discipline  in  order  not  to  close  the  door to practical applications of aesthetics and  advancement into the cultural dimension of civic  education. We shall try to  half open the door by means  of a view of the  position of aesthetics among other scientific disciplines. This should show us whether and how  it   is  possible  to   work  with  aesthetics  in  the contemporary cultural boom.

B. The Position of Aesthetics among Sciences

What is aesthetics, then? An aristocratic science with all its   attributes   of   objectivity,   exactness,  logic  and obligation,  or just  a non-binding  value or  a programmatic reflection, whose laws are submitted to the laws of psyche or the  personal culture  of a  reflecting subject?  What is its position among sciences?
The answer may be found with M. Foucault, who obtained for humanities  (it  means  also  aesthetics)  a special position among  natural  and  social   sciences  and  philosophy.  The dispersal  of contemporary  cognition and  reflection on  the world and man he denotes  as the triangle of knowledge, which we have  attempted to schematize  in order to  promote better understanding.

                                                               
Mathematical and physical sciences
sciences of language, production of life

art

                                         
humanities

philosophical 
reflection

On  one  pole  of  this  knowledge  triangle,  M.  Foucault distinguishes33  mathematical  and  physical  sciences, which employ  more or  less strict  deductive derivations  of their statements of certain axioms  and suppositions, and which can be  verified  objectively  and  definitively.  The outcome of their  endeavour is  a marked  formalization of  thinking and cognition. Foucault calls these deductive sciences.
On  the second  pole  we  find economics,  linguistics and biology,  or  sciences  of  life  and  society.  According to Foucault, they are strictly empiric sciences that do not link their statements through a  deductive procedure, but stick to facts, casual  and structural relationships  in reality; they work with discontinuity and analogy.
On the third pole of  the triangle is philosophy, with its main method,  reflection and a  universalist approach to  the world.  It searches  for and  finds order  in the  world. Its contact with  natural and mathematical  sciences is given  by its  endeavour  at  formalization  and  the  exactness of its statements; contact with the sciences  of life and society is given by partial images of the world (regional ontologies).
Humanities   (among   which    is   also   religionistics, psychology, theory  of myths and  aesthetics - in  Foucault's considerations sciences  of art) found in  the centre of this triangle of  knowledge. They belong  to none of  the corners, because none  of the three  introduced dimensions corresponds with the nature of humanities.  At the same time, they belong to each of the three  edges because they share something with them;  for this  reason they  move in  the blank spaces among other  forms of  knowledge.  With  the sciences  on inorganic nature and mathematics  the humanities (including aesthetics) share  the common  endeavour of  formalizing their procedures and  of deducing  their statements.  At the  same time,  they appropriate  cognitive  models  and  procedures  of  biology, economics  and  linguistics,  for  these  describe man (their subject matter) as an organic  unit (analogy with sciences of life), as the creator of  a variety of products (analogy with economics),   but   also   as   the   creator   of   symbolic representations of the content  of his consciousness (analogy with  linguistics). Through  these procedures  the humanities want to  comprehend man empirically while,  at the same time, seeking  those   ways  of  human   beings  as  described   by philosophy, searching  for and reflecting  universal order in human  existence. The  main working  method of  humanities is comprehension,  meaning  interpretation,   which  is  not  an isolated  method,  but  a  method  that absorbs mathematical, linguistic and other approaches.  According to Foucault, when speaking  about humanities  it  is  possible to  speak rather about   a  certain   meta-method  (he   speaks  about   their meta-epistemologic or  hypo-epistemologic position34) because it is  being constructed as  another level above  the methods employed by other sciences.
As  a  consequence  of  the  above  mentioned  position of aesthetics   (and  other   humanities)  in   the  centre   of Foucault's    knowledge   triangle,    their   position    is undetermined,  vague.   Let  us  add  to   M.  Foucault  that humanities belong everywhere, relate to everything but at the same  time  do  not  entirely  belong  anywhere.  They  claim universal  validity  and  at  the  same  time  are  maximally restricted  socially  and  culturally.  They claim scientific objectivity and validity but are subjective to a high degree. Humanities are  sciences but also are  not. They are sciences but cannot be assessed by  criteria of other sciences because they are structured according to  their own laws. They do not differ only because they have transferred their interest onto a different  subject, for  instance from  the regularities of light to  regularities of the  human psyche. They  differ not only by their inner structures but also by their purposes.
According  to this,  aesthetics is  both a fully-qualified objective science and a  subjective reflection, because it is not occupied by only one  aspect of human activity (aesthetic and artistic activity), though it  is treated as well. But it is also  occupied by how man  himself perceives this activity of his, how he reflects on  it from his own personal point of view  as  a  product  of  his  period,  social  and  cultural restrictions.  On  one  side,  this  two-in-one  function  of aesthetics is  the cause of its  strive for maximal exactness and  for  an  interdisciplinary  embracing  of  all  possible aspects of its subject matter.  On the other side, it engages in  subjective or  programmatic reflections  without claiming their  objective   validity.  In  aesthetics,   as  in  other humanities, the two-in-one human  perception of the world has fully  developed: human  experience  is,  as P.  L. Landsberg presents it,  of two kinds -  where one of them  is external, objective  experience. Internal  experience is  also a  basic kind  of experience,  not only  an ordinary  modality of  the external  variety.  He  says  that  in  experience,  the same material aspects of  being are not always given,  as being is sometimes observed  from outside, sometimes  from inside (for instance, I  can now perceive  my hand by  sight, next I  can perceive  it  by  some  other  form  of  my internal corporal perception);  for  the  external   there  is  only  objective experience, for internal experience there is only subjective, vivid, on-going being.35
In  order  to  be  consistent  we  completed the scheme of Foucault's knowledge triangle with another dimension valid in the case  of aesthetics. As  aesthetics relates to  all three sides   on   the   level    of   knowledge,   cognition   and interpretation, so it relates on another level - the level of human perception of  the world - to the  fourth dimension, to art.  Art especially  provides its  reflexive appearance with models  of reality,  models of  various emotional  and values relationships  of man  towards reality,  and with  models for interpretation of reality and the  position of man in it. The close  relation with  art provides  aesthetics not  only with material for analyses, but in  many cases it moves it forward essentially  by  presenting  new  tasks  in  front  of it and extending  its function.  In history,  as many  times before, aesthetics   had   to   change    the   repertoire   of   its interpretations  under  the  pressure  of  changes  (cf.  for instance,  the  rise  of  Renaissance  aesthetics  under  the pressure of Renaissance art),  to complete its functions, and therefore  categories,  methods  and  other  factors (cf. for instance,  the  extension  of  aesthetics  towards  aesthetic education under  the influence of  industrial mass production in the 19th century or under the influence of mass culture in the  20th). In  this close  relation, various  appearances of programmatic aesthetics are also being created and realized.
According  to  Foucault's  knowledge  triangle, aesthetics moves  in  the  blank  space  between  sciences  of inorganic nature,   sciences  of   organic  nature   and  society,  and philosophy.  However,  this  is   only  a  synchronic  sample addressing   the   general    motion   of   aesthetics.   Its multifariousness  causes its  unequal and  unbalanced motion; additionally, it is also the  cause of periods of fluctuating inclination  towards one  or another  of the  corners of  the triangle, though the relations between all of them are always present.  For  this  reason  we  are  going  to  present  its diachrony from the aspect of our acquired knowledge.
The tradition  of aesthetics as  an objectivistic science was founded  by the Greek  Pythagorians when they  proved the dependence of the  height of tone on the  length of a string. They started  that trend in aesthetics  that wants to analyze aesthetic  values from  things themselves,  not from  a human relation to  things or from a  man himself. From them  we can follow a direct line to Aristotle,  who was the first to work out aesthetics as a systematic scientific discipline based on this  principle.   From  him  this  line   develops  to  A.G. Baumgarten  in  the  18th   century,  who  placed  scientific aesthetics in a special  and defined position among sciences. And  then to  I. Kant,  who brought  philosophically oriented aesthetics  to  one  of  its  climaxes  through  studying its initial principles. In the 19th century this line transformed into   empiric   and    purposefully   exact   (experimental, especially) aesthetics  by G.T. Fechner. In  the 20th century it was developed and defined  more precisely by those such as J.  Mukařovský,   who  looked  for   structural  and  process regularities  in artistic  phenomena. This  line reached  its peak in the  great boom of exact aesthetics  of the 1960s and 1970s in  semiotic and informational aesthetics.  The line of interdisciplinary oriented aesthetics  as represented by such authors  as  G.C.  Cupchik  and   B.  S.  Mejlach,  and  such institutions  as  Institute  for  Polyaesthetic Education and Integrative  Music  Pedagogics  at  Hochschule  für Musik und Darstellende Kunst Mozarteum in  Salzburg or the Research and Recording Centre at The Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts in Bratislava appeared in 1980 - 1990.
The tradition  of aesthetics as a  reflection of universal values was founded by Socrates, who unequivocally related all aesthetic values to man. From him  we can follow this line to F. Nietzsche with his  Apollonian and Dionesian principles of art,  which  are  not  only  structural  principles of art or a means of expression but to  a large extent they express two sides  of  a  human  being,  two  controversial ways of human approach to the world. On this road we also meet M. Heidegger with his revelation of the truth  of being through art and in art. Though Heidegger  excludes subjective interpretations of art's creation, his concepts seem to  be a copy of the mutual relations of man and art in  this century. The climax of this line of reflective  aesthetics may be seen in  W. Welsch, who postulates  aesthetic  thinking  as  a  model of contemporary postmodern  thinking,  which  also  preserves  the very close contact  of artistic  comprehension of  reality and aesthetic thinking.  (  As  W.  Welsch  thinks  artistic experience can function  as  a  model   for  aesthetic  thinking.36)  If  we concentrate  on  the  above  mentioned  relation of aesthetic thinking to the postmodern era, in this line of aesthetics we can also find the direct expression of the contexts of art on one side, and  on the other the relations  of man towards the world.
The  tradition of  aesthetics as  a programme  of artistic work,  as a  reflection on  one's own  artistic creation, was founded by  the Greek sculptor  Polycleitos, who defined  the beautiful proportions of the human body in numbers and in the proportions of his sculptures.  Despite his effort to achieve objectivity,  his  aesthetics  remained  but  a  programme of creation, even though Greek  sculptors emulated him. The line of aesthetics started by him led to the iconoclastic clash in Byzantium, then to the classical doctrine of N. Boileau, with his  prescriptions  and  standards  for correctly constructed drama. It is also possible to include surrealistic aesthetics into this  stream which, though  originally emerged from  the declaration  of   intentions  for  the   aesthetic  creation, resulted   in  a   philosophically  generalizing   and  often empirically  supported aesthetic  science. The  aesthetics of socialist realism,  which arose truly  from Gorky's creation, should also be included in this  line. Each name in this line shows  clearly  how  strong  standardization  tendencies  are possessed  by  programmatic   aesthetics  and  aesthetics  as a reflection of universal values.
We   can  see   that  in   history  aesthetics  constantly oscillates  between all  three points  of Foucault's triangle - each of its variation can  be supported by an example found in almost every period. In centuries past the stream oriented towards exactness  and objective scientism  grew stronger and aesthetics  is  now  becoming  detached  from  philosophy and moving towards other corners - especially towards physics and acoustics,  mathematics and  logic, to  psychology, sociology and  linguistics. Though  this development  towards exactness and  empiricism has  become extraordinarily  strong (even the interdisciplinary  stream  is   becoming  detached),  we  are nevertheless bearing  witness to a reversal  of and a gradual orientation of  aesthetics towards philosophy.  Initially, it did  not  also  loosen  its  contact  with exact sciences and humanities,  but in  order to  deepen the  complexity of  its image of art and beauty,  it began to take over philosophical knowledge  and  methods.  This  reversal  is  so radical that aesthetics  has begun  to free  the ties  which connected  it earlier  to the  objectivistic  ideal  of scientism,  and has clearly  expressed preference  for its  reflexive appearance. Less and less it searches  for one truth (which characterized it decades  before) and more and  more admits polyvalence and plurality of truths about art  and beauty. Instead of seeking for  answers, it  begins, in  a Socratic  way, to  provoke by asking questions, and it does not intend to be the arbiter of creation or  assessor of beauty  and art at  all - it  leaves that to artists and viewers. It appreciates irrational values not only  in art but  also in the  constructing of aesthetics itself -  because it concluded,  also under the  influence of Feyerabend's  epistemologic anarchism,  that new  opinions of aesthetic   phenomena  and   processes  do   not  necessarily originate  in solid  scientific structures  but also  outside them and against them.
The  aesthetics  of  today  has  understood  -  under  the influence  of  H.  Kuhn's  paradigms  and  P.K.  Feyerabend's anarchism,   then  under   the  impression   of  the  general development of  artistic avant-gardes and  their programmatic aesthetics of the 20th century  - that each aesthetic theory, each  aesthetic  piece  of  knowledge  is  supported  by  the concrete  aesthetic attitude  of the  creator of  the theory, which means certain tastes,  certain aesthetic needs, certain aesthetic experience. The personal comprehension of aesthetic values  exhibits  an  indelible  impression  in all aesthetic studies  -  moreover,  this  was  supported  by  J. Derrida's deconstruction,  which may  be directly  related to aesthetic categories  and  consequently  out  of  which countless, even contradictory,  meanings  can  be  derived.  In  this context aesthetics reduces its criteria  of objectivity and exactness (which it has  applied fully for more than  twenty years) and admits  even  metaphoric  expressions,  mystical  statements, descriptive   or   artistic   speech.   It   combines  freely scientific,  i.e.   objective  and  exact   approaches,  with subjective statements.
It  is  obvious  that  aesthetics  may  be  approached from various directions and applied in  various ways both in civic education  and the  present cultural  boom, because  both the very  nature of  aesthetics and  its position  among sciences enables  this.  Aesthetics  is   a  discipline  that  can  be developed only with  the process of thinking. In  order to be able to enter contemporary cultural processes immediately and in  an active  way, it  is necessary  to transform aesthetics into its  own practical appearance, into  its own educational application,  i.e. into  aesthetic education.  If we consider the importance of culture,  civic education, and the cultural dimension of  civic education, it  is not enough  to continue only with that  area of human activity which  develops in the spiritual sphere. It is necessary to transfer to that area of human  activity  that  can  influence  the  human  psyche and behaviour practically. This area  of human practical activity is  aesthetic  education.  Let  us  consider  the  nature and possibilities of contemporary aesthetic education.

The Non-classical Nature of Aesthetic Education

Though  theories of  aesthetics have  already advanced  to a different style  of aesthetic education,37  in the everyday practice  of  many  countries  it  is  still  possible to see classical aesthetic education based  on ideals and procedures promoted  by Friedrich  Schiller. His  Enlightenment ideal is still so vivid that currently it is identified with aesthetic education in general. In the following lines we shall call it the classical ideal of aesthetic education.
According to  the postulates expressed  by F. Schiller  in his  writings,  aesthetic  education  should  aim  to produce a harmonious man, who is governed neither by sensuous passion nor abstract rational thinking, but who preserves the harmony of  his  abilities  -  dignity   of  spirit  and  delight  of instincts. This is possible only in a situation where quality and excellent artistic values,  imbued with Beauty, Truth and Good, inwardly harmonized and  tested by time, are presented. The task of aesthetic education  is to guide man though these works to  higher moral principles. Beauty  is comprehended as a feast  of emotions,  as something  magnificent and pleasant which man should be enchanted by and imbued with. Ultimately, this beauty and art should cultivate man, or lead him so that he  will acquire  cultivated, cultural  manners; in  the most basic perspective it means to live morally.
Aesthetic education  conceived and aimed  this way secured its place in  European culture for hundreds of  years, we may assert that even  its roots can be sought  in the Renaissance nobleman, who was  not noble only because of  his descent but also through his education and upbringing he was made a noble man, noble in spirit and behaviour. If we were consistent, we would  discover  the  roots  of  aesthetic  education  thusly conceived  with Aristotle  in  his  kalós kagathos.  E. Utitz believes   that   here   beauty   is   not   only  the  outer embellishment,  decorative ornament  or even  glitter on  the surface that  mercifully covers a shortage  of value. He says that we  rather meet the  beautiful here as  an expression of the  excellence of  human personal  being.38 It  is a perfect being,  who  combines  noble  descent,  moral  nobleness  and spiritual   depth.   The   cultivation   of   a  17th-century gentleman's tastes led to the same ideal.
Classical  aesthetic  education  educated  noble people to a harmonious inner  life. Despite the  fact that it  led many people  to  Beauty,  Truth   and  Goodness  successfully,  it contains many significant restrictions. What are they then?
This classical aesthetic education simplifies education to a great extent as it is  based on taste governing society. It leads children to  such Beauty, to such Goodness  and to such Truth the  society considers valuable and  tested by time. It does not  deem possible temporal  and spatial alterations  to these values. And what is even  worse, many times it is based on the  teacher's tastes. How  often do the  teachers attract children to classical, serious  music without ever mentioning jazz,  for instance,  because they  are persuaded  that it is a cheap popular genre ?
Classical aesthetic education  is also strongly one-sided. In  its endeavour  to bring  man to  morality, refinement and beauty,  it presents  and fosters  predominantly positive and pleasant   aesthetic  experiences   obtained  from   art.  It considers beauty to be a feast  and does not pay attention to the  dark  experiences  addressed  by  art  or the unpleasant emotions  often  presented  in  art.  Aesthetic  and artistic values are  much more multifarious and  full (as multifarious and full as the human psyche) than its pleasant shades only.
Classical  aesthetic   education  is  restrained   in  its function.In its  one-sided aim towards the  refinement of man it  highly  prefers  people  with  sophisticated,  cultivated tastes. If we describe its  attitude in an expressive way, we may say  it is guided by  the slogan that only  such a man is good  (right, valuable)  as has  sophisticated tastes,  as is sophisticated himself. Likewise, sophistication is defined by that  which in  his taste  corresponds to  that preferred  in certain  society.   According  to  this   attitude  classical aesthetic  education,  nevertheless,  excludes  marginal  and alternative  cultures from  its focus.  In its  elitism it is neither willing nor able to ascribe value to such cultures as punk, music culture  of the youth, etc. It  considers them to be  deviations  from  the  standard  (set  forth by governing tastes)   and   takes   their   adherents   for  uncultivated barbarians, who are to be educated in aesthetic manners.
Classical  aesthetic education  - if  it is  applied in an insensitive way  - can even  be dangerous because  it coerces children to accept governing tastes or teachers' tastes, thus violating  children's  psyche  and  the  cultural identity of children.
Today  as   we  witness  an   enormous  diversification  of taste,when  information and  standards of  taste or aesthetic norms immediately reach the other side of the world, in times of   pornography  and   advertising,  aesthetics   cannot  be satisfied   only  with   affecting  the   inner  harmony  and sophistication  of man.  That is  the aim  against which  the whole of  mass culture, employing the  enormous power of mass communication media,  has united in resistance.  In order for aesthetics to be able to  influence people in these times, it is essential to set different aims and apply new means.
As   the  most   effective  orientation   of  non-classical aesthetic education today, we may consider the development of critical thinking  and feeling in  the area of  aesthetic (or artistic) values. In a  situation where the ever-present mass culture does  not respect the  individual differences of  its recipients, it is possible to  resist it only though critical attitudes towards it. The same  is true for kitsch. Classical aesthetic culture did not pay attention to the development of critical attitudes, because it did  not aim to cast doubts on values,  but  to  impart  recognized  and  tested  ones.  The objective of  contemporary aesthetic education  should be, on the contrary,  education towards casting  doubts on presented values, or at least their critical acceptance.
A  sense  for  various  cultural  values,  or  at least the ability to be open in  confrontation with new ones, could aid man  in finding  his orientation  in the  inflood of  values, cultures and information. For this reason we will speak about the  development of  flexibility  in  aesthetic tastes  as an important  aim  of  contemporary  aesthetic  education.  Only flexible  tastes able  to  appreciate  or interiorize  a new, unusual value  is able not  to deny sub-culture,  alternative culture  or a  cultural product  of a  culture unfamiliar  in space  and time.  It is  informally casting  doubts on values from another side; the previous  objective was to cast doubts on values presented, but in  this case we speak about casting doubts on  subjective prejudices and  dogmas that each  of us (in our own taste also) carries inside.
The  development of  critical thinking  and flexibility  of taste  embraces in  itself the  fundamentals of  tolerance to other tastes and empathy as  qualities necessary in the world of today, where many various cultures intertwine and overlap.
These  are the  main aims  of contemporary  (non-classical) aesthetic education, which seem to  be unavoidable in this so culturally changing era. We are  not going to speak about its means here at  length; it is sufficient to  remind one of the possible employment of kitsch  (through interpretation of its structure  it is  possible to  support the  ability to resist it), of comics (the same is  valid also in this case), and so on.
The  development   of  flexibility  in   aesthetic  tastes, development of critical thinking and feeling in the sphere of aesthetic values,  tolerance to tastes  and empathy -  all of these    are    not    only    objectives   of   contemporary (non-classical)  aesthetic   education,  but  they   are  the objectives of  multicultural education as  well. The ultimate aim of  multicultural education is  tolerance and empathy  to different  cultural   values;  this  is   also  the  aim   of non-classical  aesthetic education.  Aesthetic education thus meets the multicultural at the end of the 20th century.
The objectives  of classical aesthetic  education cannot be completely denounced today, because education towards Beauty, Truth  and  Goodness,  or   the  education  towards  cultural refinement of  man still has  much to convey  to contemporary man.  It is  not placed  in the  foreground, however,  but is restricted by  contemporary conditions governing  the culture of  developed  countries.  The  objectives  of  non-classical aesthetic education  respect fully the  contemporary state in culture  (with its  internalization or  Americanization), and they  can  therefore  influence   the  consciousness  of  the recipients more  effectively. They will  also facilitate more effective  development  in  the  cultural  dimension of civic education. But aesthetics can  promote this process only when it  respects  its  own  multifarious  nature  which  we  have discussed in this chapter.  Its multifariousness may meet the multifarious cultural  needs of the  recipients and also  the multifarious aims of non-classical aesthetic education.

25)   Stefan  Morawski   writes  about   the  so-called  high circulation  of culture.  Cf. Stefan  Morawski, "O  kritickom stave estetiky," Literárny týždenník, 15. Sept.1989: 3
26)  Miloš Jůzl  and Dušan  Prokop, Úvod  do estetiky (Praha: Panorama,1989), 34
27)   Gerald   C.   Cupchik,   "The   Empirical   Narrative," Contributions to 12.  International Congress of International Association  for  Empirical   Aesthetics  Berlin  1992  (July 1992): 1
28)  Gerald   C.  Cupchik,  "A  Decade   after  Berlyne.  New Directions in  Experimental Aesthetics," Poetics  15, (1986): 368
29)  Karl  Jaspers,  Filozofia  egzystencji  (Warszawa:  PiW, 1990),196
30)  Cornelius  Castoriadis,  Philosophy,  Politics, Autonomy (New York: Oxford University Press,1991), 19
31) Miroslav Lamač, Myšlenky  moderních malířů (Praha: NČSVU, 1968), 6
32) Jaroslav Volek, Kapitoly z dějin estetiky (Praha: Panton, 1985), 32
33) Viz.  Michel Foucault, Slová a  veci (Bratislava: Pravda, 1987), 455-482
34) Michel Foucault, 468
35) Paul Ludwig Landsberg,  Zkušenost smrti (Praha: Vyšehrad, 1990), 33
36) Wolfgang  Welsch, "Zur aktualität  ästhetischen Denkens," Kunstforum International 100, (April-May 1989): 144
37)  Viz. also  works by  Marilyn G.  Stewart, Gilbert Clark, then the  concept called Discipline  Based Art Education,  or also earlier works by David Thistlewood.
38) Emil Utitz, Dějiny estetiky (Praha: NČSVU, 1968), 19