________________
Reprinted from The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, XXIV/1, Fall 1965. Printed in U.S.A.
ARCHIE J. BAHM
Comparative Aesthetics
AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE consists in intuition of intrinsic value. This conclusion has been forced upon me as a result of studying Oriental philosophies after teaching (Western) aesthetics for twelve years. The purpose of the present article is to compare Hindu, Chinese, and Western conceptions of the nature of the aesthetic, to indicate some metaphysical sources of differences in aesthetic theory, and to make clear how all may be interpreted as implying the above conclusion.
Any attempt to compare the ideals of the three major civilizations, each with its long, complex, and variegated history, exposes itself to justified criticism. Exceptions to general patterns, even when these have been correctly discerned, may be found within each of the three. Hence, the views presented about them here are intended as hypotheses about persisting emphases rather than as final conclusions about universal generalizations. Each of the three should be viewed as an evolving history of cultural ideals rather than as a clearly distinguishable monolithic scheme. Abstractions and sketchy summaries entail fictition. Yet discernment of pervasive patterns of presupposition, and summary exposition of their key ideas, may serve to provide hypothetical guides for further exploration.
DIFFERING CONCEPTIONS OF
THE AESTHETIC
Western thought, prompted by vigorous and persistent struggle to understand the aesthetic, has blossomed with many varieties of conclusion. These range from enjoy
ment of sensuous pleasures to numbers symbolizing measured ratios of distinguishable portions of complex shapes, from joyous impulses to eternally subsisting forms or beings, from creative processes to appreciative attitudes, and from the work of uniquely individualistic genius to movements collectively manifesting underlying and pervasive motifs dominating a cultural milieu. Generalization about such variety may be unwarranted. Yet, for purposes of comparison, I venture to suggest that Western interest in aesthetics historically preoccupied itself first with real things functioning as works of art, usually associated with religious, political, and other practical pursuits. Even today, I suspect, a majority of both philosophers and artists regard aesthetics as concerned primarily with philosophy of art. Varieties of art forms, disagreements about taste, and conflicting conclusions proposed by theorists all have induced many to believe that beauty exists "in the eye of the beholder." But despite a shift of interest from philosophy of art to philosophy of beauty, there remained preoccupation with how the qualities of real things produce experiences of beauty and with how experiences of beautiful objects, whether imagined (created) or real, can be projected upon real things by the appreciator (through empathy) or the artist ("extrinsicator"). Some Romanticists excepted, few Western aestheticians have located the aesthetic in subjective factors exclusively.
Hindu philosophy, typically conceiving ultimate reality and value in terms of sat
