Art as Human Practice: An Aesthetics by Georg W. Bertram

BOOK REVIEW A as Human P ac ice: An Aes he ics by Geo g W. Be am Lydia Moland Colby College, US [email protected] A book e iew o Geo g W. Be am, A as Human P ac ice: An Aes he ics. T ansla ed by Na han Ross. London: Bloomsbu y Academic, 2019, x + 240 pp. ISBN 978-1-3500-6314-3. Geo g Be am’s A as Human P ac ice: An Aes he ics is a comp ehensi e, ambi ious, pa a- digm-shi ing a icula ion o an o iginal aes he ic heo y.1 In i s ocus on aes he ic expe ience as embedded in and enhancing human p ac ices, i add esses his o ically ho ny ques ions, sugges s new a enues o in e p e a ion, and o e s a heo y wi h enough s uc u e and lex- ibili y o make a subs an ial new con ibu ion o he ield o aes he ics. Be am seeks o eo ien ou desc ip ion o aes he ics, a guing ha we unde s and a bes as i sel a p ac- ice ha challenges and enla ges o he p ac ices. In so doing, a enables us o unde s and no hing less han wha i means o be human and o do no hing less han con inue o ca y o wa d he p ojec o being human. Wha is happening o us when we ha e an aes he ic expe ience? A e we being aken ou o ou no mal p ac ices, wi h ou usual a i ude o and knowledge o he wo ld dis up ed? A e we disin e es ed in a way ha con as s o ou in e ac ions wi h he wo ld o he wise? Se e al his o ical and con empo a y heo is s o a , including A hu Dan o and Ch is oph Menke, ha e desc ibed i his way. In he book’s i s chap e , Be am gi es a sus ained c i ique o his iewpoin , which he calls ‘ he au onomy pa adigm’ o a . His conclusion, ul ima ely, is ha au onomy heo ies a e oo objec -o ien ed and so a e unable o explain he way hese objec s a e embedded in ou p ac ices (p. 43). They ‘ ake human p ac ice as a p ac ice ha is subjec o de e minacy in a one-sided way’ by hinking o ‘human p ac ice as essen ially de e mina e’. Be am ins ead unde s ands human p ac ice as ‘simul aneously de e mina e and inde e mina e’, claiming ha his syn hesis ‘has o be he basis o any explana ion o a ’ (p. 52). Be am hen mo es, in Chap e 2, o gi e wonde ully clea summa ies o wo o he lead- ing a heo is s o he Ge man nine een h cen u y, Immanuel Kan and Geo g Wilhelm F ied ich Hegel, in an a emp o ‘ ind a concep o a ha is no o e simpli ied’ (p. 56). His book will be o g ea help o hose wan ing a gene al unde s anding o bo h hese philoso- phe s, whose wo k is bo h no o iously di icul and eno mously in luen ial. Bu Be am’s 1 I appea ed o iginally as Kuns als menschliche P axis: Eine Äs he ik (Be lin: Suh kamp, 2014). Moland, Lydia. ‘ A as Human P ac ice: An Aes he ics by Geo g W. Be am.’ Es e ika: The Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics LVIII/XIV, no. 2 (2021): pp.179–183. DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.33134/eeja.274 ESTETIKA THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS Re iew180 wo k is no p ima ily a his o ical exegesis: he uses his unde s anding o Kan and Hegel o launch a be e unde s anding o human p ac ice.2 Be am’s accoun ocuses on unde s anding he way aes he ic expe ience esembles o he p ac ices ha su ound ac i i ies such as ea ing, playing, o socializing. Essen ial o his unde s anding o p ac ice is i s dialec ical emb ace o adi ion and challenge o adi ion. So, while ‘[a] human p ac ice is one ha is essen ially bound o adi ion’, i is also ue ha ‘human li e is inde e mina e om he g ound up’. This inde e minacy, impo an ly, cha ac- e izes humans jus as much as i does ou p ac ices: ‘The human being does no ha e a li e o m ha is a anged “by na u e” o be a ce ain way,’ Be am w i es. ‘Wha cha ac e izes his o m o li e is ha we always ha e o de e mine ou p ac ices anew’ (p. 50). When he challenge o ou own being becomes clea o us, we a e p omp ed o look o ools wi h which o mee i . This discussion o p ac ices allows Be am o make sense o hei inhe en openness: ha hey a e ‘no de e minable in a inal way’ bu always ‘ ela e o an open u u e’ (p. 51). This means ha p ac ices a e ‘cons i u ed by adi ion o be open o e ision and c i icism. This is wha makes up he human o m o li e’ (p. 52). This openness o e ision means ha ‘ he e is a p eca ious p ac ical elemen o human exis ence […]. Humans a e beings ha , in es ablish- ing wha hey a e, always pu hemsel es in play.’ In unde s anding his, we ‘gain an insigh in o he undamen ally p eca ious na u e o human exis ence’ (p. 87). This, as Be am poin s ou , means ha ou e lec ion on ou sel es is p ac ical: i ‘en ails change’ (p. 87). Change, in Be am’s iew, equi es nego ia ion, and one o he ools humans ha e o pe - o m his nego ia ion is a . He e a e a ew ways Be am cha ac e izes his p ocess: ‘in a , a ious human p ac ices come o be nego ia ed in a p ac ical way’ (p. 100); ‘a wo ks a e objec s ha a e cons i u ed in such a way ha hey ini ia e speci ic p ac ices. By means o hese p ac ices, o he di e en p ac ices ge enego ia ed’ (p. 101). Pu mos di ec ly: ‘A has o be unde s ood as a p ocess o nego ia ion’ (p. 114). Th ough hese conside a ions, Be am a i es a wo heses: ‘ i s , ha a wo ks and aes he ic e en s e oke in e p e i e ac i i ies ha pu sue and a icula e he cons ella ions in ol ed in hem […]. Second, hese ac i i ies ha e he po en ial o p o oke a enego ia ion o o he p ac ices on he basis o hei speci ic imagina i e po en ial’ (p. 149). The e is a lo o unpack he e, and Be am does his h ough he help o dense bu succinc pa ag aphs in which he de ines his e ms. Some o hese a e wo h quo ing a leng h, including some o he o iginal Ge man, o see how he in e locking pa s o Be am’s heo y eme ge. He e, o ins ance, a e his speci ici y and alue heses: Speci ici y Thesis: A wo ks e oke a ious ac i i ies in ecipien s on he basis o hei sel - ela ed cons i u ion, ac i i ies by means o which hese ecipien s a icula e he challenges inhe en in he a wo k’s cons ella ion o elemen s [mi els de en sie die he aus o de nden Kon igu a ionen on Elemen en diese Kuns we ke a ikulie en] Value Thesis: The cons ella ion o elemen s in an a wo k issues challenges by he way hey p o oke o he ac i i ies in he wo ld [He aus o de nd sind Kon igu a ionen on Elemen en in Kuns we ken dadu ch, dass sie eine Neubes immung ande e Ak i i ä en in 2 I would, howe e , egis e a disag eemen wi h one o Be am’s in e p e i e claims abou Hegel, namely his desc ip ion o Hegel’s accoun o a ’s decline: Hegel does no , on my in e p e a ion, belie e ha a is pe ma- nen ly declining, bu a he desc ibes he special challenges mode n a aces gi en he ac ha i can no longe c ea e eligion, say, bu only depic i . Hegel, on my eading, hinks a has eno mous po en ial in he mode n wo ld. Thus, I do no belie e ha Hegel’s explo a ion o he ene ge ic de elopmen o new a s is ‘[c]on a y o his own es ima ion’ (p. 199). Re iew 181 de Wel ans oßen]. In dealing wi h a , we manage o ede ine o he ac i i ies in he amewo k o human p ac ices, al hough his ede ini ion can also esul in con i m- ing al eady es ablished ac i i ies. (p. 150) Pu ano he way: ‘ he p ope ies o aes he ic alue ha we ind embodied in a wo ks belong o he s uc u e o he wo ld in ha hey p o oke he enego ia ion o human p ac ices. They belong o he s uc u e o he wo ld in ha hey challenge he way we deal wi h he wo ld’ (Die äs he ischen We eigenscha en on Kuns we ken gehö en dadu ch zum Ge üge de Wel , dass sie Neuaushandlungen menschliche P ak iken ans oßen. Sie gehö en dadu ch zum Ge üge de Wel , dass sie die Auseinande se zung mi de Wel he aus o de n) (p. 150; Ge man a p. 144). As demons a ed in hese quo a ions, Be am’s heo y makes equen use o wo ds such as p o oke (ans oßen) o challenge (Auseinande se zung o he aus o de n). A one poin he says ha ‘[a] wo ks s uggle o de elop challenges’ (Kuns we ke ingen da um, He aus o de ungen zu en wickeln) (p. 197; Ge man a p. 185). He also speaks o a wo ks compe ing wi h each o he (Kuns we ke we ei e n mi einande ) and o he ‘agonal’ s uggle o meaning hey ep- esen (p. 197; Ge man a p. 185). This ocabula y cons ella ion, whose o ce is powe ully e oked by Be am’s ansla o , Na han Ross, keeps he exis en ial na u e o Be am’s unde - lying claims always in he eade ’s mind. A , his language makes clea , is no hing less han pa o humans’ s uggle o unde s and and c ea e hemsel es: an example o he cons an a emp s o o ge meaning and escape a ophy ha cha ac e ize ou li es oge he . This unde s anding o aes he ic expe ience as challenging ou p ac ices can, Be am claims, be ex ended beyond he a wo ld. Su eying a dese landscape, o ins ance, he sug- ges s, ‘issues a di e en kind o p o oca ion’ by o e ing ‘a se ies o connec ions in which di e en elemen s in e ac in a complex manne ’ (p. 153). When we iew a landscape in his way, ‘we disco e he na u al landscape as an objec ha has he po en ial o guide in e p e- i e ac i i ies’. The landscape can become an objec ‘o an unlimi ed p ocess o explo a ion’, p o oking us ou o ou habi ual in e ac ions wi h ou en i onmen while s ill s aying deeply embedded in ou o he p ac ices (p. 154). Be am gi es a ich a gumen o unde s anding a wo ks as wo king in and c ea ing con- s ella ions, bo h in e nally – by e e ing o hei own cons i uen pa s in ela ional ways – and ex e nally – by e e ing o o he a wo ks o aes he ic gen es. The claim ha a wo ks exis in hese kinds o cons ella ions, always issuing new challenges, accoun s o how new gen es can a ise and olde gen es can g ow s ale o a ophy. Be am uses he example o ilm’s e olu ion om silen o sound and hen o including o he media like anima ion, o ins ance, o a gue ha ‘[a] is ic gen es a e always caugh in a s a e o dissolu ion. They a e always abou o ans o m in o new gen es.’ This, oo, can be unde s ood h ough imagining cons ella ions ha e ol e wi hin a gen e bu also s e ch i beyond i sel : ‘Es ablished gen es,’ he w i es, ‘a e cons an ly econ igu ed by gene ic cons ella ions ha ha e no ye been es ab- lished in hem (like he way ilm changes h ough he addi ional elemen o sound space)’ (p. 213). Film’s e olu ion is dependen on he ‘de elopmen ha he gene ic cons ella ions unde go in a wo ks’ (p. 214). This emphasis on in e p e i e and no ma i e p ac ices deli e s, by Be am’s accoun , an objec i e as opposed o a subjec i e accoun o aes he ics. Aes he ic judgemen s ‘a e o ien ed owa d he ques ion o whe he a wo ks p o oke an adequa e de ini ion o human p ac ices. This is hei objec i e basis’ (p. 215). This means ha ‘cons ella ions o an a wo k elease g ea i i a ions, open up su p ising pe spec i es, ha hey p esen a g and s uc u e, ich in ension, ha ecipien s a e p o oked, ha hey a e able o a icula e hei eelings in dealing wi h he cons ella ions, and many o he hings.’ The alue o a wo ks, hen, comes when ‘ hey challenge ecipien s – which can also esul in he con i ma ion o how hey unde s and Re iew182 hemsel es’ (pp. 196–97). In o he wo ds, as well as being hemsel es a p ac ice, a wo ks help us hink h ough ou p ac ices: hey ‘b ing g ea e de ini ion o ou p ac ices in a ious ways h ough hei challenging aspec ’ (p. 201). And, o epea , in engaging in all o his p o- oking, challenging, and compe ing, a helps us deal wi h he exis en ial ques ions aised by he openness o ou own na u es, o , as Be am pu s i , ‘Wha we e alua e a e p o oca ions o human p ac ice – p o oca ions ha I ha e summa ized by saying ha a deals wi h de in- ing wha i is o be human’ (p. 216). This de ini ion o a also sheds ligh on wha we a e doing when we in e p e an a - wo k: Be am claims ha ‘[a] ’s p ocess o nego ia ion eme ges om a dynamic connec ion be ween a wo ks and hose in e p e i e ac i i ies ha challenge o h de ini ions o human p ac ice’. He adds ha ‘ hese challenges do no ake place in a s aigh o wa d way, bu a e ins ead bound up wi h a complex p ocess o judgmen in which we conside a wo ks as aluable o c i icize hem as ailing based on hei own claims’. In his way, ou judgemen s become no ma i e as well as in e p e i e: ‘I is only h ough hese no ma i e and e alua i e p ac ices ha we can explain he in e subjec i e cha ac e o he aes he ic p ocess o nego- ia ion in an adequa e way’ (pp. 215–16). He e Be am emphasizes he connec ion o hese e alua ions o humans’ eedom: ‘In hei capaci y o c i ically disce n and e alua e, hese ac i i ies o judgmen con ibu e in an essen ial way o how we nego ia e he de ini ion o human p ac ice as a p ocess o sel -de e mina ion’ (p. 217). This, b oadly speaking, is why a will always be mode n: i is always being eassessed h ough new p ac ices and pushing he p ac ices hemsel es o e-e alua e, expand, o con ac (p. 203). A g ea i ue in Be am’s a en ion o p ac ice, in my opinion, is he esul ing a en ion o ways in which ou aes he ic expe ience is embodied. Be am eminds us ha mo ing o music is no he only way in which we espond physically o a . We walk h ough a chi ec- u al spaces and a ound sculp u es; we ha e o ‘p ac ice o ms o hea ing’ o deal wi h bo h a chi ec u e and music; we combine bo h ac ile and isual pe spec i es when expe ienc- ing sculp u e. We a e o en emo ionally challenged, especially by na a i e a , expe iencing empa hy, ou age, conce n, o ea . ‘We ha e o g asp such emo ional eac ions as ac i i ies inhe en o he ecep ion o he wo k,’ Be am w i es, ‘and hey hus demons a e a speci ic o m o in e p e a ion o a wo ks’ (p. 133). This a en ion wa ns us no o p i ilege ex ual in e p e a ion: ‘ o a icula e in language he cons ella ions wi hin he a wo k is some hing ha we should unde s and as only one in e p e i e ac i i y among o he s’ (p. 134). Wha , hen, a e we doing when we judge a wo ks? We a e, Be am hinks, e alua ing ‘ he po en ial o a wo ks o p o oke a enego ia ion o he de ini ions o p ac ices’ (p. 221). I comes as no su p ise ha philosophy, as a human p ac ice ha explici ly e lec s on human p ac ice, plays a ole in ou aes he ic judgemen s, oo. ‘A philosophical o heo e ical a i ude owa d a is pa o a ’s p ac ice,’ Be am w i es – o , pu ano he way, ‘i belongs o he compe i ion o a wo ks o aes he ic success o a icula e his compe i ion’. Such compe i- ion is i sel philosophical, a kind o ‘ e lec ion on e lec ion’ ha can make a ’s ole in ou p ac ices, and hus i s alue, e iden (p. 226). A ’s con ibu ion o eedom, Be am concludes, is unique. ‘A wo ks accomplish a con- ibu ion o eedom because o how hey challenge human p ac ices,’ he w i es. ‘The ee- dom ha is ealized in a demons a es his peculia i y: I is no he kind o eedom ha is in ol ed in a c i ical e lec ion by means o concep s. Ra he , his ealiza ion o eedom is bound o objec s ha guide he sel -de e mina ion o p ac ices’ (p. 231). In a challenge o much adi ional heo izing abou a , Be am claims ha a objec s need no be sensible o ma e ial. This opens up mo e p oduc i e analyses o li e a u e and concep ual a , which, all oo o en, a e inco po a ed in o sense-based heo ies o a in only he mos awkwa d o ways (p. 125). Re iew 183 In he end, Be am concludes, we need a o ‘issue necessa y challenges’ (p. 234). We need s ill li es o show us ensions in social ela ions (p. 210), poe y o challenge ou unde s and- ing o ou own language, dance o show us wha no ms we unknowingly inhabi ega ding how he body can and should wo k. A challenges us o in e p e he wo ld; in in e p e ing i , we engage in a aluable p ac ice o e alua ing ou p ac ices, showing in u n how a wo ks a e o alue. This also cla i ies how we e alua e a wo ks agains each o he : a wo ks ha success ully challenge us o engage in hese e alua ions a e hemsel es mos aluable. Gi en he ichness o Be am’s accoun , he eade is le wonde ing how i could be applied o answe o he ques ions. How does his unde s anding o aes he ic expe ience map on o o he his o ical o cul u al unde s andings o a ? Inso a as a is o en ma e ial o sen- sual, wha can his heo y each us abou ou e ol ing unde s anding o he way we see o hea , and how ou p ac ices a ound hese senses a e also up o nego ia ion? As o he book’s o ma , I ound mysel eg e ing he lack o an index, which would ha e allowed eade s o ace how Be am’s complex in e locking pa s cohe e ac oss his w i ing. Be am’s heo y consis s o dialec ically in e locking pieces ha gi e an o ganically in e - wo en sense o a ’s impo ance and, mos cen ally, i s exis en ial ole in human li e. I gi es us a con ex h ough which o compa e o he seminal hinke s in he aes he ic adi ion such as Nelson Goodman, John McDowell, and Noël Ca oll. Al hough i s schola ly c eden ials a e impeccable, his book is no a d y wo k o academic schola ship: i p esen s a genuinely exci - ing and ene gizing heo y ha makes one immedia ely wan o apply i o a wo ks. I hus makes possible he e y compe i i e, p o oca i e ene gy o e lec ion and sel -de e mina ion ha i s heo y desc ibes. Be am’s aes he ic heo y should ake i s place among o he s as a comp ehensi e heo y o aes he ics. Jus as impo an ly, i is p imed o make ou e e yday expe ience o aes he ics iche . In showing how a pa icipa es in and helps ou human p ac- ices e ol e, Be am’s heo y e eals a o be an essen ial pa o exis ing and h i ing in ou e y challenging wo ld. Compe ing In e es s The au ho has no compe ing in e es s o decla e. How o ci e his a icle: Moland, Lydia. ‘ A as Human P ac ice: An Aes he ics by Geo g W. Be am.’ Es e ika: The Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics LVIII/XIV, no. 2 (2021): pp. 179–183. DOI: h ps://doi. o g/10.33134/eeja.274 Published: 16 Sep embe 2021 Copy igh : © 2021 The Au ho (s). This is an open-access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License (CC-BY 4.0), which pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal au ho and sou ce a e c edi ed. See h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/. Es e ika: The Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics is a pee - e iewed open access jou nal published by Helsinki Uni e si y P ess in coope a ion wi h he Facul y o A s, Cha les Uni e si y in P ague. OPEN ACCESS