Q24 - Eighteenth-century European aesthetics

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: There can be no complete theory of aesthetics.
Evidence: We had a reasonably complete theory of aesthetics in the 1700s, but the art in the 1960s falls outside of that theory, as well as outside of the aesthetics theory in the 1960s.

Answer Anticipation:
How would we counterargue that a complete theory of aesthetics IS possible? How can we deal with the author's objection: 1960s art falls outside the then-current theory of aesthetics. Maybe we could say, "Cool, author. How about we just make a NEW theory of aesthetics that ENCAPTURES the art from the 1960s? Couldn't that be a complete theory?" The author seems to assume that since there was ONCE a style of art that fell outside current aesthetic theory, there will ALWAYS be some new art form that eludes the boundaries of the then-current aesthetic theory.

Correct Answer:
E

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Stop reading as soon as you hit "more important". The author doesn't have to assume anything is "more important" than another. The issue being debated is simply whether or not a complete theory of aesthetics is possible.

(B) Does the author need to assume this? Doesn't seem like it. If we negated this assumption and said that 1960s artists WERE guided by knowledge of 1700's aesthetic theory, would that pose any sort of objection? No. We don't care why or how an art movement managed to operate OUTSIDE the bounds of the then-current aesthetic theory. We only care whether it's possible to create an aesthetic theory that would envelop all past and future forms of art.

(C) Nothing in this argument is about transferring theories from one part of the world to another.

(D) Tempting. 1960s art is the only style of art mentioned that fell outside 18th century European aesthetics, but that doesn't mean the author has to assume that ONLY 1960s art falls outside. It's possible that art in the 70's, 80's, 90's, etc. ALSO falls outside. That would only strengthen the author's argument.

(E) It's a dubiously strong assumption: 18th century European aesthetics is "as encompassing as an aesthetic theory can be". But it's the best answer available. If we negate it, it's making the objection we made in our prephrase: "Hey, author … couldn't we just make a new aesthetic theory that DOES encompass 1960s art?" The author is reaching her state of complete pessimism about ever attaining a complete theory by arguing, "We basically HAD a complete theory, but then a form of art came along and didn't fit inside. Thus, we're forever screwed."

Takeaway/Pattern: Definitely a wrong-to-right problem. The better we do at verbalizing our counterargument, i.e. "couldn't we just modify aesthetic theory to include such rebellious art as that of the 1960s?" the easier it will be to detect, within (E), that same type of objection.

#officialexplanation

[clarafok]

hello,

i'm not quite seeing why E is the answer to this question. so basically, the argument says that 18th century european aesthetics was successful until in the 1960s when artists rebelled against it. so just because these artists' work was beautiful, but it was outside the bounds of aesthetic theory, and thus there is no complete aesthetics theory.

is E the answer because it explains how the argument uses 18th century aesthetics theory as a basis to define 'complete'? is B out of scope? and why is C wrong?

thanks in advance!

[mattie.baber]

I would also like some help with this question, and it seems to have gone unanswered.

[elizabeth.r.casanova]

This is how I approached this problem - hopefully this explanation is accurate:

Before the 1960s: 18th century European aesthetics theory (EAT) did a good job in providing an understanding of all art.
1960's: Rebellious artists began to create works that were outside of the EAT that all the prior artists' work had 'fit into.'
Conclusion: There can never be a complete aesthetics theory (CAT).

Limited Evidence Flaw: This conclusion is quite extreme. We are given information about one explanation, EAT, that due to the rebellious artists, cannot provide a full understanding of all art. What about other explanations/examples that the author fails to mention that could entail an understanding of all art? Moreover, maybe a complete theory will be realized years later.

Lack of Evidence Flaw: We know that European Aesthetics cannot provide understanding of 1960s art, but the author applies this absence as an impossibility of a CAT.

Correct answer:
(E) -- the argument must assume this: there is not another option that could be more of a complete understanding than the EAT, which eliminates other possibilities. If there was a theory that could account for a more complete option, the argument wouldn't hold.

Wrong answers:
(A) The argument doesn't make assumptions about which beauty is more important. We just know that the European aesthetics can't provide understanding of 1960s.
(B)The argument doesn't make assumptions regarding what motivated the rebellious artists. Also, the artists probably could have been guided by their knowledge of European aesthetics and still ended up outside of the bounds.
(C) No discussion regarding theory development nor region application.
(D) No, it provides this as an example, the argument might allow for more (i.e. maybe 1960s - present)

[shirando21]

Thanks.

[joseph.m.kirby]

Elizabeth did an awesome job explaining this one. However, I wanted to go further in expanding on my take of the flaw.

I believe the flaw is assuming that what is true in the past/present will be true in the future.

Argument:

In the past, EAT (Eighteenth-century European Aesthetics) successfully encompassed all Art.
Now, EAT cannot encompass all Art.
[Assumption: only EAT could successfully encompass all Art ever]
-----------
Conclusion: there will never be an all encompassing theory of aesthetics

[ilia.medovikov]

Just a side note,

Necessary Assumption (that 18th century aesthetics theory is as encompassing as an aesthetic theory may be) functions as a sufficient assumption as well.

[maryadkins]

Necessary Assumption (that 18th century aesthetics theory is as encompassing as an aesthetic theory may be) functions as a sufficient assumption as well.

Yes, it does! Thanks for sharing the point.

[ganbayou]

Hello,
About E, could anyone explain how/why the part "eighteenth century European aesthetics is as encompassing as an aesthetic theory can be" in E would mean "there is no other complete theory"?

I read the above explanation, and I like it but just was not sure about this part...

Thank you

[maryadkins]

If 18th Cent European aesthetics is incomplete (which it is, we're told), and it is as complete as a theory may be, then there is no way another theory can be complete.

[mswang7]

Premises: 18th century euro aesthetics provided understanding of all art until 60s when artists rebelled on purpose
Work of rebellious artists are outside bounds of aesthetic theory
Concl: Can be no complete theory of aesthetics
Gaps: Argument assumes if there are works outside the bounds of aesthetic theory there can't be a complete theory

A. The argument is about there is or isn't - not a degree of importance
B. Not sure how their knowledge is relevant
C. I think the argument only discusses art in europe
D. only art? The argument does not do this
E. Not completely sure what this is saying but this is closest to my prephrase

Would love any feedback on my reasoning.