Infrastructures of Aesthetic Agency

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic McIver Lopes
Keyword(s):  
Social Theory ◽  
Network Theory ◽  
Social Practices ◽  
Main Argument ◽  
Aesthetic Value ◽  
Aesthetic Reason

The main argument for the network theory of aesthetic value is that it better explains the facts about aesthetic activity than does its rival, aesthetic hedonism. According to the network theory, an aesthetic value figures in a fact that lends weight to the proposition that it would be an aesthetic achievement for an agent to act. An aesthetic achievement is an act that succeeds out of aesthetic competence, so an agent has aesthetic reason to act just when they have reason to achieve by so acting. Agents with aesthetic reasons to act have reasons to act in coordination with one another when their coordination raises their chances of achieving. In acting, they rely upon and give rise to social formations. Aesthetic agency is scaffolded by aesthetic practices, which are social practices. A contrast is drawn with structuralist social theory.

Getting Practical

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic McIver Lopes
Keyword(s):  
Network Theory ◽  
Mental Representations ◽  
Practical Reasons ◽  
Main Argument ◽  
Aesthetic Appreciation ◽  
Aesthetic Value ◽  
Aesthetic Property ◽  
Aesthetic Values ◽  
Aesthetic Reason

While the main argument for the network theory of aesthetic value is that it better explains the facts about aesthetic activity than does aesthetic hedonism, the two theories share some common assumptions. Aesthetic evaluations are mental representations that attribute aesthetic values to items. Aesthetic acts are acts based on aesthetic evaluations. Aesthetic values figure in aesthetic reasons, which are practical reasons. That is, an aesthetic reason lends weight to the proposition that an agent should perform some act—an act of aesthetic appreciation, for example. Hence, one task for a theory of aesthetic value is to state what makes some values aesthetic. A second is to state what makes it the case that an aesthetic property figures in a reason that lends weight to what an agent should do. Aesthetic hedonism and the network theory offer only to explain the practical normativity of aesthetic value.

Hundred Mile Aesthetics

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic McIver Lopes
Keyword(s):  
Network Theory ◽  
Main Argument ◽  
Aesthetic Value ◽  
Psychological Traits ◽  
Aesthetic Practice ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Aesthetic Values

The main argument for the network theory of aesthetic value is that it better explains the facts about aesthetic activity than aesthetic hedonism. According to the network theory, an aesthetic value figures in a fact that lends weight to the proposition that it would be an aesthetic achievement for an agent to act in the context of an aesthetic practice. Each aesthetic practice has its own aesthetic profile, in which determinate aesthetic values are distinctively realized, and each has core aesthetic norms centred on its distinctive aesthetic profile. An account is given of the valence of aesthetic values. The theory explains why aesthetic experts disperse into almost all demographic niches, why they jointly inhabit the whole aesthetic universe, why they specialize by aesthetic domain, why they specialize by type of activity, why they specialize by activity and domain interacts, and why their expertise is rooted in relatively stable psychological traits.

Beings for Beauty

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic McIver Lopes
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Network Theory ◽  
Main Argument ◽  
Aesthetic Value ◽  
Psychological Traits ◽  
Almost All

The main argument for the network theory of aesthetic value is that it better explains the facts about aesthetic activity than does its rival, aesthetic hedonism. Aesthetic activity is not limited to appreciation, and six case studies are presented of aesthetic agents whose expertise covers a range of aesthetic activities. From a survey of the case studies, we see that six facts need explaining. Aesthetic experts disperse into almost all demographic niches, they jointly inhabit the whole aesthetic universe, they specialize by aesthetic domain, they specialize by type of activity, they specialize by activity and domain interact, and their expertise is rooted in relatively stable psychological traits.

To Seize upon the Applause of the Heart

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic McIver Lopes
Keyword(s):  
Network Theory ◽  
Practical Reasons ◽  
Main Argument ◽  
Aesthetic Value ◽  
Theory Of Value ◽  
Aesthetic Values ◽  
Contemporary Account

The main argument for the network theory of aesthetic value is that it better explains the facts about aesthetic activity than does its rival, aesthetic hedonism. Aesthetic hedonism reduces aesthetic values to hedonic values, which naturally figure in practical reasons. That an item offers an agent pleasure is always reason for them to access the pleasure. Most philosophers add that aesthetic values are subject to a standard. On the best contemporary account, the standard is represented by an ideal aesthetic appreciator. An argument is given to explain why the standard represented by an ideal aesthetic appreciator is normative for all aesthetic agents. Finally, aesthetic hedonism befits a desire-based theory of value.

Strength and Warranties of Skill

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic McIver Lopes
Keyword(s):  
Network Theory ◽  
Main Argument ◽  
Aesthetic Value ◽  
Aesthetic Evaluation

The main argument for the network theory of aesthetic value is that it better explains the facts about aesthetic activity than does its rival, aesthetic hedonism. The network theory states what makes it the case that an aesthetic value is reason-giving: it figures in a fact that lends weight to the proposition that it would be an aesthetic achievement for an agent to act. An aesthetic achievement is an act that succeeds as a result of the exercise of an aesthetic competence seated in the agent. Core aesthetic competence is competence in aesthetic evaluation. Aesthetic meta-competence is competence in selecting opportunities for acting aesthetically. An aesthetic expert is an agent who has competence for aesthetic achievement.

Six Degrees of Separation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic McIver Lopes
Keyword(s):  
Bounded Rationality ◽  
Network Theory ◽  
Main Argument ◽  
Aesthetic Value ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Six Degrees Of Separation

The main argument for the network theory of aesthetic value is that it better explains six facts about aesthetic activity than does its rival, aesthetic hedonism. The chapter indicates why aesthetic hedonism does not predict how aesthetic experts disperse into almost all demographic niches, how they jointly inhabit the whole aesthetic universe, how they specialize by aesthetic domain, how they specialize by type of activity, how they specialize by activity and domain interact, or how their expertise comes to be relatively stable. In addition, the account of the normativity of aesthetic reasons has some revealing flaws. The account has trouble with the plasticity of pleasure, the bounded rationality of aesthetic agents, the importance of aesthetic personality, and the possibility of the alienation of aesthetic reasons from desires.

Being for Beauty

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic McIver Lopes
Keyword(s):  
Constitutive Relation ◽  
Network Theory ◽  
Main Argument ◽  
Aesthetic Value ◽  
Distinctive Character ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Aesthetic Values ◽  
Shed Light

One question that leads us into aesthetics is: why does beauty matter? Or, what do aesthetic goods bring to my life, to make it a life that goes well? Or, how does beauty deserve the place we have evidently made for it in our lives? A theory of aesthetic value states what beauty is so as to equip us to answer this question. According to aesthetic hedonism, aesthetic values are properties of items that stand in constitutive relation to pleasure. Contemporary versions of aesthetic hedonism don’t explain what makes aesthetic values aesthetic, but they do explain what makes them normative, stating what makes it the case that aesthetic value facts lend weight to what an agent should do, for the fact that acting yields pleasure is always a reason to act. This book introduces and defends an alternative to aesthetic hedonism. According to the network theory, aesthetic value facts lend weight to its being an achievement for an agent to act. Since agents achieve by acting in coordination with one another, the theory takes seriously the sociality of aesthetic activity. The main argument for the network theory is that it better explains six facts about aesthetic activity than does aesthetic hedonism. The book also discusses the relationship between aesthetic value and pleasure, the point and distinctive character of aesthetic discourse, and the metaphysics of aesthetic value. Two final chapters use the network theory to shed light on how aesthetic value matters to us as individuals and as members of collectives.

Building Better Aesthetic Agents

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic McIver Lopes
Keyword(s):  
Public Goods ◽  
Network Theory ◽  
Arts Education ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Communication Technologies ◽  
Social Structures ◽  
Aesthetic Value ◽  
The Aesthetic

A theory of aesthetic value should help us to make sense of how our aesthetic commitments matter to us as members of collectives. Aesthetic policies endogenous to aesthetic practices are directly justified by the network theory. The chapter looks at what aesthetic reasons we have to adopt exogenous aesthetic policies. Many argue that aesthetic practices deserve public support because aesthetic goods are public goods. A case is made for an aesthetic opportunity principle: larger social groups have reason to foster the aesthetic opportunities available to their members. The principle is applied to arts education and to communication technologies subserving aesthetic exchanges. The chapter ends with a discussion of how aesthetic opportunity interacts with—and can potentially counteract—oppressive social structures.

Decadence in the Biographical Sense

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Graham Harman
Keyword(s):  
Social Theory ◽  
Network Theory ◽  
Object Oriented ◽  
Actor Network Theory ◽  
Object Oriented Method ◽  
Actor Network ◽  
Primary Meaning

This article summarizes the author's 2016 book Immaterialism: Objects and Social Theory, outlining the book's five criticisms of actor-network theory (ANT) and its fifteen provisional rules of object-oriented method in social theory. The article also considers Bruno Latour's criticism of Immaterialism, in particular his view that such terms as “symbiosis” and “decadence” rely too heavily on an inappropriate “biological” metaphor that has no place in discussion objects in a wider sense. In response, the authors claims that the primary meaning of the symbiosis and decadence is not biological, but biographical.

Actor-Network Theory and Autopoiesis

2009 ◽  
pp. 67-79
Author(s):  
Lars Steiner
Keyword(s):  
Knowledge Management ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Network Theory ◽  
Process Analysis ◽  
Actor Network Theory ◽  
Actor Network ◽  
Research And Innovation ◽  
The Social ◽  
Knowledge Intensive ◽  
Over Time

A new knowledge management perspective and tool, ANT/AUTOPOIESIS, for analysis of knowledge management in knowledge-intensive organizations is presented. An information technology (IT) research and innovation co-operation between university actors and companies interested in the area of smart home IT applications is used to illustrate analysis using this perspective. Actor-network theory (ANT) and the social theory of autopoiesis are used in analyzing knowledge management, starting from the foundation of a research co-operation. ANT provides the character of relations between actors and actants, how power is translated by actors and the transformation of relations over time. The social theory of autopoiesis provides the tools to analyze organizational closure and reproduction of organizational identity. The perspective used allows a process analysis, and at the same time analysis of structural characteristics of knowledge management. Knowledge management depends on powerful actors, whose power changes over time. Here this power is entrepreneurial and based on relations and actors’ innovation knowledge.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document