HOME ABOUT LOG IN REGISTER SEARCH CURRENT ARCHIVES ANNOUNCEMENTS CALL FOR PAPER LINKS SPECIAL ISSUE

FUP Journals
USER
Username
Password
Remember me
Log In
NOTIFICATIONS
View
Subscribe
JOURNAL CONTENT
Search
All
Search
Browse
By Issue
By Author
By Title
Other Journals
INFORMATION
For Readers
For Authors
For Librarians
Publication Ethics and
Publication Malpractice
Statement
Journal Help
WlLLgensLeln on 8eauLlful" and 1he
8eauLlful"
Cabrlele 1omasl
ln hls lectotes oo Aestbetlcs (1938) WlLLgensLeln noLlces how unlmporLanL Lhe
role played by Lhe ad[ecLlve beauLlful" ls when aesLheLlc [udgmenLs are made
(cfr. LA, l, 8)
[1]
. ln a remark from 1946 he goes far beyond and Lalks of Lhe
mlschlef done by Lhe concepL of Lhe beauLlful" (Cv, 33e). 1hls may appear
puzzllng, lf compared Lo a noLe from hls Notebooks 1914-16 where - maybe a blL
ouL of Lune wlLh Lhe 2eltqelst - he sLaLes LhaL Lhere ls cerLalnly someLhlng ln Lhe
concepLlon LhaL Lhe end of arL ls Lhe beauLlful (n8, 21.10.16)
[2]
. 1he obvlous
explanaLlon of Lhe Lenslon among Lhese sLaLemenLs would be Lo connecL lL Lo Lhe
change of Lhe vlews LhaL WlLLgensLeln held ln hls early work, and Lo suppose LhaL
ln hls Cambrldge lecLures he dlsLanced hlmself from hls prevlous clalm abouL a
relaLlon beLween arL and beauLy
[3]
.
l would llke Lo skeLch a dlfferenL plcLure, and Lry Lo hlghllghL an elemenL of
conLlnulLy ln WlLLgensLeln's vlews on arL and beauLy amld Lhe profound changes
hls phllosophlcal concepLlons underwenL. 8oughly sald, whaL explalns Lhls
conLlnulLy ls Lhe facL LhaL WlLLgensLeln's ldeas on arL and beauLy reflecL more an
aLLlLude Lowards llfe Lhan a LheoreLlcal vlew, an aLLlLude LhaL presumably dld noL
subsLanLlally change ln laLer years, whlle many of hls early concepLlons changed
lnsLead.
1he paper ls dlvlded lnLo flve parLs. ln Lhe flrsL parL l wlll commenL on Lhe
Notebooks enLry and suggesL LhaL lL expresses Lhe young WlLLgensLeln's ldeas on
Lhe value of arL, whlle - as we wlll see ln Lhe Lhlrd parL - Lhe vlew presenLed ln Lhe
lectotes addresses Lhe quesLlon of aesLheLlc appreclaLlon. ln Lhe second parL
Lhere ls an excursus on uuLch palnLlng. ln Lhe fourLh parL l wlll say someLhlng on
Lhe posslblllLy LhaL WlLLgensLeln had acknowledged Lhe hlsLorlcal characLer of a
cerLaln concepLlon of beauLy, and ln Lhls way l hope Lo offer a conLexL for
undersLandlng hls observaLlon on Lhe mlschlef done by Lhe concepL of Lhe
beauLlful". llnally, ln Lhe flfLh parL l wlll Lry Lo show LhaL WlLLgensLeln saves a
sense for Lalklng abouL beauLy ln relaLlon Lo Lhe experlence of arL.
1. 1be 8eootlfol os tbe oJ of Att
1he Notebooks observaLlon LhaL l quoLed belongs Lo a serles of lnLrlgulng
reflecLlons on Cod, Lhe meanlng of Lhe world or of llfe, happlness, sln, eLhlcs and
aesLheLlcs LhaL WlLLgensLeln wroLe ln Lhe second half of 1916. 1hey offer a
framework for Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe enLry on beauLy as Lhe alm of arL. Among
Lhem, very lmporLanL are a couple of remarks on arL Lo whlch LhaL enLry ls dlrecLly
connecLed. A noLe on arL and eLhlcs LhaL WlLLgensLeln wroLe a couple of weeks
before Lhe one on beauLy has a cruclal lmporLance: 1he work of arL ls Lhe ob[ecL
seen sob specle oetetoltotls, and Lhe good llfe ls Lhe world seen sob specle
oetetoltotls. 1hls ls Lhe connecLlon beLween arL and eLhlcs (n8, 7.10.16).
Whlle arL ls commonly LhoughL of as a pracLlce, Lhe noLe suggesLs LhaL lL ls a
way of seelng. lL reflecLs young WlLLgensLeln's Schopenhauerlan concepLlon of arL
ARTICLE TOOLS
How to cite item
Finding References
Email this article (Login
required)
Email the author (Login
required)
ISSN 2035-8466 (online)
Current Issue
Special Issue 2012
Call for Paper
Register to receive new
issue alert
Conference announcement
Wittgenstein 2013
For Contributors
Submit Online
Instructions for Authors
(ITA)
as a way of looklng aL Lhlngs. lL ls presumably from Schopenhauer, who used lL ln
relaLlon Lo arL, LhaL WlLLgensLeln borrowed Lhe Splnozlan expresslon sob specle
oetetoltotls Lo characLerlze Lhe way arL looks aL Lhlngs. no less ldlosyncraLlc ls hls
concepLlon of eLhlcs. LLhlcs ls usually LhoughL of as a normaLlve dlsclpllne.
Powever, WlLLgensLeln seems Lo conslder lL an aLLlLude lnsLead. Accordlngly, arL
does noL resulL prlmarlly ln Lhe creaLlon of an ob[ecL of some klnd, nor eLhlcs ln
seLLlng norms or ln parLlcular declslons or courses of acLlon ln keeplng wlLh Lhem,
raLher, Lhey boLh appear Lo Lransform a pre-exlsLlng lLem lnLo someLhlng dlfferenL
and Lhls noL by alLerlng lL, buL ln vlrLue of Lhe way Lhey conslder lL. Whlchever Lhe
preclse naLure of Lhe vlew sob specle oetetoltotls, accordlng Lo WlLLgensLeln
Lhls way of looklng has a Lransformlng effecL: ln Lhe case of arL, when lL ls seen
sob specle oetetoltotls a parLlcular ob[ecL ls Lransformed lnLo a work of arL, as
for eLhlcs, lL ls lnLeresLlng LhaL Lhe LransformaLlon concerns our slLuaLlon as a
whole. ln WlLLgensLeln's words lL ls Lhe world, LhaL ls, llfe (1L, 3.621) LhaL ls
Lransformed lnLo Lhe good llfe by Lhe way lL ls looked aL.
l wlll come back ln a momenL Lo Lhls parallellsm. As for now leL me focus on arL.
1he concepLlon LhaL, slnce arL ls an aLLlLude, more Lhan an acLlvlLy, whaL an arLlsL
flrsL and foremosL provldes ls a Lransformlng way of vlewlng, ls conflrmed ln a
noLe of 1930 from coltote ooJ voloe. 1he noLe also helps Lo characLerlze Lhe
LransformaLlon LhaL occurs Lhrough arL. WlLLgensLeln wrlLes LhaL Lhe work of arL
compels us Lo see an ob[ecL ln Lhe rlghL perspecLlve, whlle ln Lhe absence of arL,
Lhe ob[ecL ls [usL a fragmenL of naLure llke any oLher (Cv, 4e). 1o be a plece of
naLure, LhaL ls a parL of Lhe world, means Lo be an elemenL of whaL Lhe 1toctotos
called Lhe bow of Lhe world, an elemenL of Lhe accldenLal Cescbebeo ooJ 5o-
selo, where, accordlng Lo WlLLgensLeln, Lhere ls no value (cfr. 1L, 6.41). 1hen
whaL WlLLgensLeln ls suggesLlng ls LhaL arL can Lurn an ob[ecL LhaL ls a mere plece
of naLure lnLo someLhlng of value, lnLo an ob[ecL LhaL ls worLh conLemplaLlng. Pe
seems Lo echo a LhoughL by Schopenhauer. ln 1be wotlJ os wlll ooJ
kepteseototloo (1818
1
, 1844
2
) Schopenhauer wrlLes: ArL [.] plucks Lhe ob[ecL of
lLs conLemplaLlon from Lhe sLream of Lhe world's course, and holds lL lsolaLed
before lL. 1hls parLlcular Lhlng, whlch ln Lhe sLream was an lnflnlLeslmal parL,
becomes for arL a represenLaLlve of Lhe whole [.]. (Schopenhauer [1818
1
,
1844
2
], 8ook 3, sec. 36, vol. l, 183)
WlLLgensLeln expresses a slmllar polnL by saylng LhaL a Lhlng LhaL as one among
Lhe many Lhlngs ln Lhe world was lnslgnlflcanL, when conLemplaLed becomes Lhe
world of Lhe observer and as such slgnlflcanL (cfr. n8, 8.10.16). A characLerlsLlc of
Lhe arLlsLlc way of seelng ls absorpLlon ln Lhe ob[ecL: lL ls noL a way of seelng LhaL
conslders boLh Lhe ob[ecL and Lhe relaLlonshlps lL has wlLh oLher ob[ecLs, raLher lL
ls a way of seelng ln whlch Lhe observer ls absorbed by Lhe ob[ecL so LhaL Lhe
ob[ecL becomes her world
[4]
. lncldenLally, we can observe LhaL Lhls facL
underllnes Lhe lmaglnaLlve characLer of arLlsLlc vlslon. vlsual percepLlon ls
necessarlly mulLlple, whlle lmagery can deLach an ob[ecL from lLs surroundlng
and poslL lL alone: lL ls selecLlve, absLracLlng, and Lhls capaclLy ls an aspecL of lLs
lnherenL creaLlvlLy (Cfr. McClnn [2004]: 23-24). Colng back Lo WlLLgensLeln's
suggesLlon, Lo undersLand why Lhls way of seelng makes Lhe ob[ecL slgnlflcanL, aL
leasL Lwo oLher elemenLs of hls concepLlon should be recalled.
1he flrsL elemenL ls Lhe enlgmaLlc observaLlon LhaL aesLheLlcally, Lhe mlracle ls
LhaL Lhe world exlsLs. 1haL Lhere ls whaL Lhere ls (n8, 20.10.16). 1he Cerman LexL
sounds: uas kunsLlerlsche Wunder lsL, da es dle WelL glbL. ua es glbL, was es
glbL. 1hls suggesLs LhaL Lhe mlracle ln quesLlon ls ln some sense worked by arL.
Powever, we could also LranslaLe Wunder" wlLh wonder", and recall LhaL ln Lhe
lectote oo tblcs (1929-1930), Lo express whaL he means by absoluLe value",
WlLLgensLeln menLlons Lhe experlence of wonderlng aL Lhe exlsLence of Lhe world
(cfr. LL, 8). As a response Lo Lhe world, wonder ls a sorL of affecLlve grasplng of Lhe
ooo-occlJeotollty of Lhe belng of whaL Lhere ls, a way of feellng lLs non-
accldenLallLy. 1herefore, lL ls a way of experlenclng value and sense. Colng back Lo
arL, we could say LhaL Lhe mlracle worked by arL ls Lo force us Lo look aL Lhlngs, or
aL Lhe world, wlLh a sense of wonder aL Lhelr exlsLence. As we wlll see, also ln laLer
years WlLLgensLeln connecLs Lhe basls of arL Lo Lhe concepL of wonder. lL ls
lnLeresLlng LhaL Lhe mlracle or Lhe wonder of arL does noL have anyLhlng Lo do
wlLh Lhe facLs belng ln any parLlcular way, buL lL slmply has Lo do wlLh Lhelr belng
Istruzioni per la
collaborazione alla Sezione
Recensioni
KEYWORDS
Adorno Aesthetic experience
Aesthetics Art Artwork
Benjamin Emotion Experience
Genette Herder Hlderlin Image
Kant Language Ontology
Perception Poetry Sensibility
Valry Warburg
Wittgenstein
some way(Morrls [2008]: 328). 1hls lnvolves Laklng Lhe dlfference creaLed by arL
Lo be a maLLer of how Lhe same Lhlng seems Lo an observer. When WlLLgensLeln
says LhaL ln absence of arL, Lhe ob[ecL ls [usL a fragmenL of naLure llke any oLher,
whaL he means ls LhaL arL makes an experlence of value posslble.
1hls brlngs us Lo Lhe second elemenL of WlLLgensLeln's concepLlon LhaL l would
llke Lo recall. ln Lhe llnes LhaL follow Lhe one on Lhe arLlsLlc mlracle, WlLLgensLeln
asks rheLorlcally: ls lL Lhe essence of Lhe arLlsLlc way of looklng aL Lhlngs, LhaL lL
looks aL Lhe world wlLh a happy eye?. And he answers quoLlng Schlller: Llfe ls
serlous, arL ls gay (n8, 20.10.16). 1he quoLe comes from Lhe rologue of
wolleostelo, a drama seL ln Lhe mlddle of Lhe havoc, Lhe robberles, Lhe mlsery of
Lhe 1hlrLy ?ears' War. lL remlnds us LhaL Lhe serenlLy of arL ls noL Lo be found ln
whaL lL presenLs, buL raLher ln bow lL ls presenLed(Wllde [2004]: 173)
[3]
. 8eslde
[oy arL can embrace sorrow and Lhe Lraglc dlmenslon of llfe and lLs beauLy does
noL depend on Lhe sub[ecL buL ls connecLed Lo language.
lL ls lnLrlgulng LhaL Lhe Notebooks enLry on beauLy as Lhe end of arL follows
lmmedlaLely afLer Schlller's quoLe, and LhaL WlLLgensLeln commenLs on lL by
saylng: And Lhe beauLlful ls whaL makes happy (n8, 29.10.16). Accordlng Lo
oLher remarks ln Lhe Notebooks, WlLLgensLeln LhoughL LhaL ln order Lo llve
happlly one musL be ln agreemenL wlLh Lhe world. Pe sLaLes LhaL belng ln
agreemenL wlLh Lhe world ls whaL belng happy" meoos, and LhaL only a men
who llves noL ln Llme buL ln Lhe presenL ls happy. Llvlng ln Lhe presenL" means
llvlng eLernally, slnce WlLLgensLeln undersLands by eLernlLy" noL lnflnlLe
Lemporal duraLlon buL non-LemporallLy (n8, 8.7.16). WlLh Lhese belng Lhe
characLerlsLlcs of happlness, we undersLand why Lhe arLlsLlc eye ls a happy eye. lL
looks aL Lhe world sob specle oetetoltotls, LhaL ls, from Lhe polnL of vlew of a
person who llves ln Lhe presenL, and Lhls way of seelng ls presumably whaL good
arL expresses (cfr. n8, 19.9.16). Powever, one could ob[ecL LhaL Lhe deLachmenL
expressed ln Lhe ldea of a vlslon sob specle oetetoltotls ls only Lhe negaLlve
condlLlon for belng ln agreemenL wlLh Lhe world. Llvlng ln Lhe presenL cerLalnly
means llvlng wlLhouL deslres, hopes or fears LhaL pro[ecL lnLo Lhe fuLure and
connecL Lo Lhe pasL. Powever, whaL follows from Lhls deLachmenL ls renunclaLlon,
noL yeL happlness. WhaL ls Lhen Lhe polnL of belng ln agreemenL wlLh Lhe world?
WlLLgensLeln noLlces LhaL we approach Lhe world as someLhlng LhaL ls already
Lhere and Lhls ls why we have Lhe feellng of belng dependenL on lL as faLe (cfr.
n8, 8.7.16). ln order Lo llve happlly one has Lo overcome Lhls feellng of
dependence. near Lhe end of hls lettets oo tbe Aestbetlc Jocotloo of Moo (1793)
Schlller wrlLes LhaL beauLy alone confers happlness on all, and under lLs lnfluence
every belng forgeLs LhaL he ls llmlLed (leLLer 27). l llke Lo Lhlnk LhaL WlLLgensLeln,
by quoLlng Schlller's llnes, was hlnLlng aL Lhe ldea LhaL beauLy makes us happy
slnce lL helps us Lo overcome Lhe sense of necesslLy, of consLralnL, LhaL
characLerlzes our relaLlon Lo Lhe world
[6]
. Pe appears even more radlcal Lhan
Schlller, because, whlle for Schlller Lhe [oyous realm of Lhe appearance and of
arL ls Lhe realm of lmaglnaLlon, for hlm lL ls our world LhaL ls Lransformed, lf only
we look arLlsLlcally aL lL, LhaL ls, lf only we see as a mlracle Lhe belng Lhere of whaL
Lhere ls. 1hls ls Lhe mlracle of arL, and l suggesL LhaL by sLaLlng LhaL Lhere ls
cerLalnly someLhlng ln Lhe concepLlon LhaL Lhe beauLlful - LhaL whlch makes happy
- ls Lhe alm of arL, WlLLgensLeln ls probably hlnLlng aL Lhls mlracle.
Cood arL, l.e. arL LhaL expresses Lhe way ln whlch Lhe arLlsL saw Lhe
(represenLed) ob[ecL (cfr. n8, 19.09.16), offers us momenLs of grace ln whlch Lhe
slgnlflcance of Lhe world, LhaL ls, of llfe, ls revealed (Cfr. 8udd [2011]: 773-776).
Powever, l do noL Lhlnk we should read WlLLgensLeln's noLes as a skeLch of a
Lheory of arL, anyway, lf Lhey were, lL would noL be a good Lheory of arL, alLhough
Lhey probably caLch Lhe polnL of some arL and Lhe reason why lL has value for us.
As l read Lhem, Lhey express a polnL of vlew on value. WlLLgensLeln seems Lo have
LhoughL LhaL sense and value are packed LogeLher ln Lhe experlence of wonderlng
or when Lhe presence (or presenLness) of Lhlngs ls felL more lnLensely as our
world. When he speaks of Lhe arLlsLlc mlracle he ls hlnLlng aL a way of seelng LhaL
can be characLerlzed as Lhe percepLlon fllled wlLh wonder of Lhe presence (or
presenLness) of Lhlngs, as lf arL embodled Lhe posslblllLy of lllumlnaLlng Lhe world
wlLh meanlng and value or Lhe posslblllLy of a happy llfe
[7]
. 1he beauLlful as Lhe
end of arL ls noLhlng oLher Lhan Lhe world seen sob specle oetetoltotls. Slnce for
WlLLgensLeln belng happy" means belng ln agreemenL wlLh Lhe world or llvlng ln
Lhe presenL, we can undersLand why he Lhlnks LhaL Lhe beauLlful ls whaL makes
happy. uo we really flnd a dlfferenL plcLure when we move Lo Lhe wrlLlngs of hls
laLer years? As for Lhe lecLures from Lhe 1930s, Lhe facL LhaL WlLLgensLeln malnly
focuses hls aLLenLlon on Lhe ad[ecLlve beauLlful" lnsLead of on lLs use as a noun or
on Lhe noun beauLy" should make us doubL. 8efore Lurnlng Lo Lhose LexLs, l wlll
brlefly expand on a passage of Lhe early 1930s, whlch l have already parLlally
quoLed. lL ls a passage LhaL slgnals Lhe exlsLence of conLlnulLles beLween
WlLLgensLeln's earller and laLer concepLlon of Lhe alm and value of arL
[8]
.
2. xcotsos. wlttqeostelo ooJ uotcb lolotloq
ln Lhe noLe from coltote ooJ voloe WlLLgensLeln recalls a conversaLlon beLween
hlm and hls frlend aul Lngelmann when Lngelmann sald LhaL when he, aL home,
looks aL a drawer full of hls manuscrlpLs, Lhey appear Lo hlm valuable and worLh
publlshlng, buL when he conslders publlshlng a selecLlon of Lhem Lhe whole
buslness loses lLs charm and value. 1o help hls frlend undersLandlng Lhls sLrange
experlence, WlLLgensLeln suggesLs hlm a comparlson: l sald LhaL lL was llke Lhe
followlng case: noLhlng could be more remarkable Lhan seelng a man who Lhlnks
he ls unobserved performlng some qulLe slmple everyday acLlvlLy. Pe Lhen
suggesLs a klnd of LhoughL experlmenL:
LeL us lmaglne a LheaLre, Lhe curLaln goes up and we see a man alone ln a room, walklng
up and down, llghLlng a clgareLLe, slLLlng down, eLc. so LhaL suddenly we are observlng a
human belng from ouLslde ln a way LhaL ordlnarlly we can never observe ourselves, lL
would be llke waLchlng a chapLer of a blography wlLh our own eyes, - surely Lhls would
be uncanny and wonderful aL Lhe same Llme. We should be observlng someLhlng more
wonderful Lhan anyLhlng a playwrlghL could arrange Lo be acLed or spoken on Lhe sLage:
llfe lLself. (Cv, 4e)
ln a sense Lhe LheaLrlcal slLuaLlon glves sLrucLure Lo Lhe former case and
WlLLgensLeln focuses hls aLLenLlon on Lhe effecL of Lhe vlslon from Lhe ouLslde,
from a deLached polnL of vlew: an ordlnary scene becomes exLraordlnary,
remarkable. Pe Lhus suggesLs LhaL Lhe way we look aL Lhlngs can have a sorL of
power of LransformaLlon. lL ls Lhe power he Lalked abouL ln Lhe Notebooks enLry of
8.10.16 and lllusLraLed wlLh Lhe sLove-example, suggesLlng LhaL Lhe everyday can
become a domaln for Lhe aesLheLlc: someLhlng famlllar becomes wonderful. now,
lL ls lnLeresLlng LhaL ln Lhe noLe of 1930, WlLLgensLeln noL only clalms LhaL only
Lhe arLlsL can so represenL Lhe lndlvldual so LhaL lL appears Lo us as a work of arL,
recalllng Lhe Notebooks enLry of 7.10.16, buL also malnLalns LhaL a work of arL
forces us - as one mlghL say - Lo see lL ln Lhe rlghL perspecLlve (Cv, 4e), LhaL ls,
lL makes us capable of wonderlng aL Lhe exlsLence of whaL Lhere ls. 1he LheaLre
LhoughL experlmenL adumbraLed ln Lhe noLe suggesLs LhaL arL offers a klnd of
space where someLhlng - an ob[ecL, a slLuaLlon, a characLer, eLc. - comes Lo
presence or, beLLer perhaps, where presence (or presenLness) ls felL more
lnLensely. Sense and value are packed LogeLher ln Lhls experlence for
WlLLgensLeln, lL seems.
1here are cerLaln arLworks LhaL can be consldered an exempllflcaLlon of Lhls
concepLlon. hoLography offers many examples. Works llke Lhe phoLographs of
lndusLrlal sLrucLures by 8ernd and Pllla 8echer, Lhe landscapes phoLographs by
8oberL Adams, or clLyscapes by Alfred SLlegllLz, Walker Lvans and aul SLrand
seem Lo allow for a way of seelng LhaL Lranscends Lhe llmlLs of lndlvldual
perspecLlve ln Lhe sense lnLended by WlLLgensLeln. Cne could also Lhlnk of works
by conLemporary phoLographers llke Clare 8lchardson, or by !eff Wall. Above all
Wall's Motoloq cleooloq (1999) could be lnLerpreLed as embodylng a way of
looklng aL Lhlngs akln Lo Lhe one WlLLgensLeln hlnLs aL
[9]
. Powever, maybe lL ls ln
xvll cenLury uuLch palnLlng LhaL we flnd an aLLlLude Lowards Lhe world whlch ls
very slmllar Lo whaL WlLLgensLeln conslders Lhe arLlsLlc way of seelng. Conslder
palnLlngs such as 1be coottyotJ of o noose lo uelft (1638) by leLer ue Pooch,
womoo keoJloq (laLe 1660s) by leLer !anssens Lllnga, womoo peelloq opples by
Cerard 1er 8orch (ca. 1660), or !ohannes vermeer's 1be locemoket (1669-70).
WlLhouL geLLlng lnLo lnLerpreLaLlve deLalls, l suggesL LhaL Lhose arLlsLs, by
deplcLlng Lhe mosL commonplace scenes wlLh Lhe greaLesL accuracy and sklll, so
LhaL Lhey look sLunnlng and beauLlful, make us acknowledge LhaL even Lhe leasL
lnLeresLlng ob[ecLs can be seen - and deplcLed - as lmmensely valuable. 1hrough
Lhelr works Lhey have shown LhaL beauLy can be found ln Lhe mosL meanlngless
ob[ecLs, ln Lhe mosL obvlous gesLure and ordlnary scene. 8uL whaL makes beauLy
appear ls Lhe quallLy of Lhe (arLlsL's) gaze. lL ls acLually Lhe gaze of Lhe palnLer LhaL
by means of selecLlng an ob[ecL or a scene from Lhe world and Lransformlng lL,
puLs us ln conLacL wlLh beauLy (cfr. 1odorov [2000]: 88)
[10]
. lurLhermore, as
1zveLan 1odorov noLlces, Lhere ls a sense of suspenslon of Llme ln ue Pooch as
well as ln 1er 8orch and vermeer LhaL suggesLs a (Splnozlan) vlslon sob specle
oetetol, so LhaL Lhe LranslenL ls capLured and becomes eLernal. 1he deplcLed
scenes are Laken from ordlnary llfe - a lady wrlLlng a leLLer, a woman peellng
apples, people drlnklng ln a courLyard, eLc. -, buL Lhe sub[ecLs look as lf Lhey dld
noL belong Lo Lhe scene anymore. Cnce agaln, Lhls ls Lhe effecL of Lhe palnLer's
gaze, a gaze full of grace LhaL re[olces ln Lhe exlsLence of Lhlngs, LhaL Lransforms
llfe lllumlnaLlng lL wlLh meanlng and beauLy (cfr. 1odorov [2000]: 116 ). lL ls, l
belleve, Lhe same grace WlLLgensLeln evokes whlle speaklng of arL as of a way of
looklng aL Lhlngs sob specle oetetol or wlLh a happy eye. 8oLh WlLLgensLeln's sLove
example and Lhe ordlnary scene performed ln a LheaLre concelved of ln Lhe noLe
from coltote ooJ voloe are, aL leasL ln splrlL, near Lo Lhe uuLch palnLerly
experlence LhaL beauLy can be found ln Lhe mosL common and humble
ob[ecLs
[11]
. lf l am noL wrong, ln Lhe early 1930s WlLLgensLeln sLlll LhoughL LhaL arL
can make Lhe Lrlvlal slgnlflcanL and LhaL beauLy - or Lhe beauLy of arL - ls one wlLh
an experlence of meanlng and value. LeL us now Lurn Lo Lhe lecLures from Lhe
1930s.
3. 1be (AlleqeJ) loslqolflcooce of 8eootlfol lo Aestbetlc volootloo
no doubL also ln regard Lo aesLheLlcs a new landscape dellneaLes from Lhe 1hlrLles
on. AesLheLlcs ls no longer examlned ln lLs connecLlon Lo eLhlcs, and arL ln noL
approached by WlLLgensLeln as a klnd of vlslon. Maybe he puL lnLo pracLlce hls
bellef LhaL, as a perspecLlve onLo Lhe world, arL and aesLheLlcs cannoL be
expressed (crf. 1L, 6.421). 8e LhaL as lL may, when he now Lalks abouL aesLheLlcs,
he focuses more on conLexLs of arLlsLlc producLlon and evaluaLlve pracLlces,
lnLerLwlned wlLh oLher aspecLs of whaL he calls a form of llfe", LhaL ls, Lhe
sLrucLured acLlvlLles of groups of human agenLs
[12]
. A beLLer name for hls lectotes
oo Aestbetlcs would have been LecLures on crlLlclsm"
[13]
.Pe dlscusses boLh
ordlnary pracLlces such as Lhe evaluaLlon of Lhe lengLh of a sulL (LA, l, 13, 3), or of
Lhe helghL of a door and Lhe aesLheLlc [udgmenL of poems or of pleces of muslc,
apparenLly conslderlng Lhem on a par. Accordlngly, he sees aesLheLlcs connecLed
Lo Lhe knowledge of a form of llfe, a culLure, an epoch and lLs sLyles, rules and
sLandards of evaluaLlon, and Lo Lhe knowledge of Lhe hlsLory of arLefacLs.
1hls comprehenslon of aesLheLlcs belng Lhe background of WlLLgensLeln's
dlscusslon of Lhe word beauLlful" ln lecLures from Lhe 1930s, lL ls obvlous LhaL hls
conslderaLlons concern essenLlally Lhe use of Lhe word ln evaluaLlve pracLlces.
1hey could be organlzed accordlng Lo Lwo perspecLlves, alLhough Lhey are sLrlcLly
connecLed, l wlll dlsLlngulsh beLween Lhem and call one Lhe concepLual", and Lhe
oLher Lhe developmenLal perspecLlve".
(l) 1be cooceptool petspectlve. WlLLgensLeln's lectotes oo Aestbetlcs beglns
wlLh Lhe sLaLemenL LhaL Lhe sub[ecL AesLheLlcs" ls enLlrely mlsundersLood, and
Lhe flrsL observaLlon on Lhe Loplc concerns Lhe very word beauLlful": 1he use of
such word as beauLlful" ls even more apL Lo be mlsundersLood lf you look aL Lhe
llngulsLlc form of senLences ln whlch lL occurs Lhan mosL oLher words. '8eauLlful'
[.] ls an ad[ecLlve, so you are lncllned Lo say: 1hls has a cerLaln quallLy, LhaL of
belng beauLlful" (LA, 1, 1).
WlLLgensLeln crlLlclzes Lhe mlsundersLandlng of Lhe word beauLlful" as a word
denoLlng a quallLy, someLhlng all beauLlful Lhlngs have ln common
[14]
. ApparenLly
lL ls lnLelllglble Lo say LhaL beauLy ls a quallLy of Lhlngs, buL, lf lL ls, how does one
know LhaL a Lhlng has Lhls quallLy? ln Allce Ambrose's noLes from WlLLgensLeln
lecLures of 1932-33 WlLLgensLeln ls reporLed Lo have asked preclsely Lhls quesLlon.
1ake a face: ls Lhe arrangemenL of lLs colours, proflle, conLour of Lhe brows, eLc.
whaL we mean by a beauLlful face, or are Lhese feaLures only a sympLom of
beauLy? WlLLgensLeln observes LhaL ln order for someLhlng Lo be Lhe sympLom of
someLhlng else, lL should be posslble Lo pursue an lndependenL lnvesLlgaLlon of lL.
Pe makes Lhe followlng example: lf l wanL Lo know wheLher a rod ls elasLlc l can
flnd ouL by looklng Lhrough a mlcroscope Lo see Lhe arrangemenL of lLs parLlcles,
Lhe naLure of Lhelr arrangemenL belng a sympLom of lLs elasLlclLy, or lnelasLlclLy.
Cr l can LesL Lhe rod emplrlcally, e.g., see how far lL can be pulled ouL. now, whlle
Lhe naLure of Lhe arrangemenL of Lhe parLlcles ls someLhlng from whlch Lhe rod
elasLlclLy can be concluded, and arguably ls someLhlng LhaL all elasLlc rods have ln
common, lL seems LhaL a separaLe lnvesLlgaLlon ls noL posslble ln Lhe case of
beauLy. 8aLher, lL ls [usL a cerLaln arrangemenL of colors and shape whaL we
mean by a beauLlful face. 8uL, lf beauLy ls lnherenL ln an arrangemenL of colours
and shape, Lhen Lhere ls noLhlng LhaL all beauLlful faces have ln common.
WlLLgensLeln furLher noLlces LhaL no arrangemenL ls beauLlful ln lLself and Lhls
helps hlm Lo make Lhe more general polnL LhaL Lhe word beauLy" ls used for a
Lhousand dlfferenL Lhlngs. 8eauLy of face ls dlfferenL from LhaL of flowers and
anlmals.
8y argulng LhaL whaL makes a Lhlng beauLlful - say a face - may dlffer from
whaL makes anoLher Lhlng - say a flower - beauLlful, WlLLgensLeln ls somehow
maklng Lhe polnL LhaL beauLlful" ls mosL ofLen used as an aLLrlbuLlve raLher Lhan
a predlcaLlve ad[ecLlve(Cfr. also 8udd [2011]: 778). Powever, lL ls lnLeresLlng LhaL
he corroboraLes hls bellef, observlng LhaL one ls playlng uLLerly dlfferenL games"
when dlscusslng beauLy of face or beauLy of flowers, eLc. 1he word beauLlful" ls
bound up wlLh Lhe words lL modlfles, and when applled Lo a face ls noL Lhe
same as when applled Lo flowers and Lrees. We have ln Lhe laLLer a slmllar
'game' (AWL, 34-36). A LhoughL close Lo Lhls appears ln a couple of remarks from
coltote ooJ voloe coeval wlLh Ambrose's noLes, where Lhe conLexL ls LhaL of
comparaLlve [udgmenLs:
lf someone says, leL's suppose, A's eyes have a more beauLlful expresslon Lhan 8's",
Lhen l should say LhaL he ls cerLalnly noL uslng Lhe word beauLlful" Lo mean whaL ls
common Lo everyLhlng we call beauLlful. Cn Lhe conLrary, he ls playlng a game wlLh Lhe
word LhaL has qulLe narrow bounds. 8uL whaL shows Lhls? uld l have ln mlnd some
parLlcular, resLrlcLed explanaLlon of Lhe word beauLlful"? CerLalnly noL. - 8uL perhaps l
shall noL even feel llke comparlng Lhe beauLy of expresslon ln a palr of eyes wlLh Lhe
beauLy ln Lhe shape of a nose.
So perhaps we mlghL say: lf Lhere were a language wlLh Lwo words so LhaL Lhere were
no reference Lo anyLhlng common Lo such cases, l should have no Lrouble abouL uslng
one of Lhese Lwo speclal words for my case and my meanlng would noL be
lmpoverlshed.
lf l say A has beauLlful eyes someone may ask me: whaL do you flnd beauLlful abouL hls
eyes, and perhaps l shall reply: Lhe almond shape, long eye-lashes, dellcaLe llds. WhaL
do Lhese eyes have ln common wlLh a goLhlc church LhaL l flnd beauLlful Loo? Should l
say Lhey make a slmllar lmpresslon on me? WhaL lf l were Lo say LhaL ln boLh cases my
hand feels Lemped Lo draw Lhem? 1haL aL any raLe would be a narrow deflnlLlon of Lhe
beauLlful. (Cv, 24e)
WlLLgensLeln Lhen suggesLs LhaL lf we seek our reason for calllng someLhlng
beauLlful, Lhe pecullar grammar of Lhe word ln a parLlcular lnsLance wlll be
evldenL. 1hese references Lo language games and grammar brlng us Lo Lhe second
aspecL of WlLLgensLeln's sLraLegy. Pe ls reporLed Lo have sald: one Lhlng we
always do when dlscusslng a word ls Lo ask how we were LaughL lL. uolng Lhls on
Lhe one hand desLroys a varleLy of mlsconcepLlons, on Lhe oLher hand glves you a
prlmlLlve language ln whlch Lhe word ls used (LA, l, 3, 1). As we wlll now see,
slnce WlLLgensLeln malnLalns LhaL Lhe occaslon on whlch beauLlful" ls used, Lhe
slLuaLlon ln whlch lL has a place can be hlghly compllcaLed, LhaL we have a
prlmlLlve language ls of Lhe greaLesL lmporLance.
(ll) 1be Jevelopmeotol petspectlve. 8oLh ln Lhe lecLures of Lhe early 1hlrLles and
ln Lhose of 1938 WlLLgensLeln draws Lhe aLLenLlon of hls audlence Lo how we
learn words such as beauLlful" and ugly". Accordlng Lo Ambrose's noLes, he
relLeraLes hls crlLlclsm Lo Lhe ldea of beauLy as a common properLy by observlng:
We do noL as chlldren dlscover Lhe quallLy of beauLy or ugllness ln a foce and flnd
LhaL Lhese are quallLles LhaL a ttee has ln common wlLh lL (cfr. AWL, 33-36). ln Lhe
lecLures of 1938 he reLurns Lo Lhe chlldren slLuaLlon, focusslng Lhe aLLenLlon on
how a chlld learns Lhe word beauLlful". Pe ls reporLed Lo have sald LhaL a chlld
learns lL as an lnLer[ecLlon, LhaL ls, as an expresslon loglcally on Lhe same level as
an Ch!" or a smlle, and LhaL Lhe word ls LaughL as a subsLlLuLe for a faclal
expresslon or a gesLure of approval (LA, 3, 2, 2)
[13]
.
As we have seen, accordlng Lo WlLLgensLeln asklng how we were LaughL a word
desLroys a varleLy of mlsconcepLlons and glves us a prlmlLlve language ln whlch
Lhe word ls used. 1he Lwo Lhlngs are connecLed. 1he word prlmlLlve" has noL
necessarlly a pe[oraLlve nuance. When he says LhaL words such as beauLlful" are
used as lnLer[ecLlons ln prlmlLlve languages, he presumably means LhaL Lhey are
used ln Lhls way ln languages less complex Lhan our own. AL Lhe same Llme,
however, WlLLgensLeln seems Lo conslder a prlmlLlve language as a model Lo
whlch our language could be compared
[16]
. CLherwlse lL becomes dlfflculL Lo
undersLand why by asklng how we were LaughL a word we can desLroy a varleLy of
mlsconcepLlons. 1he case of beauLlful" ls clear enough. As far as Lhe prlmlLlve
language ln whlch lL ls used as an lnLer[ecLlon goes, problems abouL whaL Lhe
word ls abouL, whaL lLs real sub[ecL ls, WlLLgensLeln says, don'L come up aL all
(LA, l, 7, 3). lL ls obvlous LhaL, as such a subsLlLuLe, beauLlful" cannoL denoLe
anyLhlng.
lf, on Lhe one hand, by lnvlLlng us Lo con[ure up how we learn Lhe word
beauLlful" WlLLgensLeln correcLs our lmage LhaL Lhe words refers Lo a common
quallLy, on Lhe oLher hand, Lhe equaLlon of Lhe game ln whlch Lhe word ls used as
an lnLer[ecLlon wlLh a prlmlLlve language suggesLs LhaL furLher maLerlals are
needed Lo arrlve Lo our language, and Lo Lhe much rlcher acLlvlLles LhaL are our
aesLheLlc pracLlces
[17]
. resumably WlLLgensLeln assumes LhaL Lhe pracLlce of
aesLheLlc evaluaLlon has grown from prlmlLlve forms of reacLlon, LhaL ls, from pre-
llngulsLlc forms of reacLlon such as faclal expresslons or gesLures of approval, and
LhaL Lhese forms of reacLlon are proLoLypes of modes of LhoughL. As such, Lhey
puL a grammaLlcal or concepLual welghL on Lhe use of beauLlful" wlLhln Lhe
pracLlce of aesLheLlc evaluaLlon.
WlLh regard Lo Lhls, WlLLgensLeln's conslderaLlons have a crlLlcal lmporL. Slnce
he deplcLs Lhe reacLlon LhaL Lhe word beauLlful" subsLlLuLes or expresses as
raLher elemenLary, lL could be doubLed LhaL Lhls ls a Lrue aesLheLlc reacLlon. ln
facL, accordlng Lo hlm, an aesLheLlc reacLlon ls noL Lhe mere expresslon of a feellng
as a sub[ecLlve sLaLe, buL an expresslon LhaL Lakes Lhe form of a crlLlclsm, LhaL
ls, LhaL has a cognlLlve characLer
[18]
. 1he followlng passage from hls lectotes oo
Aestbetlcs ls emblemaLlc. WlLLgensLeln does noL refer Lo beauLlful", buL l Lhlnk
we can exLend hls observaLlon also Lo Lhls word: When we make an aesLheLlc
[udgmenL abouL a Lhlng, we do noL [usL gape aL lL and say: Ch! Pow marvellous!"
We dlsLlngulsh beLween a person who knows whaL he ls Lalklng abouL and a
person who doesn'L (LA, l, 17, 6).
1hough we may Lhlnk LhaL beauLlful" expresses an aesLheLlc reacLlon,
WlLLgensLeln emphaslzes LhaL a person who reacLs Lo a plece of muslc or a poem
by uslng Lhls word or oLhers slmllar Lo lL does noL know whaL he ls Lalklng
abouL
[19]
. AesLheLlc appreclaLlon ls approval puL lnLo words
[20]
, Lherefore lL
presupposes knowledge of Lhe relevanL rules or sLandards LogeLher wlLh personal
senslblllLy or dlscernmenL (cfr. LA, l, 8-13, 3-3)
[21]
.
Maybe WlLLgensLeln ls golng Loo far wlLh hls crlLlclsm. lL ls posslble Lo save a
role for beauLlful" ln aesLheLlc [udgmenL, LhaL ls, as an expresslon of Lhe
experlence a crlLlcal dlscusslon lssues ln, or, ln oLher words, as a Lerm Lo express
Lhe value an ob[ecL has ln vlrLue of lLs possesslon of aesLheLlc quallLles of Lhe klnd
WlLLgensLeln hlnLs aL when he Lalks abouL muslc, poeLry, sulLs or eyes
[22]
. l wlll
noL pursue hls conslderaLlon on aesLheLlc evaluaLlon any furLher. LeL me slmply
observe LhaL nelLher hls crlLlclsm Lo Lhe ldea of beauLy as a common properLy nor
hls emphaslzlng LhaL an aesLheLlc ad[ecLlve such as beauLlful" plays hardly any
role ln aesLheLlc appreclaLlon, do pet se undermlne Lhe ldea of Lhe beauLlful" as
concelved of ln Lhe Notebooks, slnce Lhe beauLlful" was Lhere nelLher a common
properLy of beauLlful Lhlngs nor a quallLy LhaL we can polnL ouL and aL leasL Lry Lo
descrlbe. Powever, WlLLgensLeln also hlnLs aL Lhe mlschlef made by Lhe concepL of
Lhe beauLlful". ln Lhe nexL secLlon l wlll Lry Lo show LhaL hls observaLlon may be
undersLood lf we read lL agalnsL Lhe approprlaLe hlsLorlcal background.
4. 1be nlstotlcol cbotoctet of 8eooty
Accordlng Lo WlLLgensLeln appreclaLlon ls embedded ln Lhe culLure of a perlod, lL
presupposes knowledge of sLyles, poeLlcs, eLc. AcLually, Lo appreclaLe a work of arL
one has probably Lo undersLand lf noL necessarlly admlre Lhe culLure Lo whlch lL
belongs. ln a remark from 1949 WlLLgensLeln observed LhaL one reason why
auLhors become daLed, even Lhough Lhey once omoooteJ Lo someLhlng, ls LhaL
Lhelr wrlLlngs, wlLhouL Lhe relnforcemenL by Lhelr conLemporary seLLlng, dle,
as lf berefL of Lhe lllumlnaLlon LhaL gave Lhem Lhelr colour. Pe exempllfles Lhe
polnL recalllng Lhe beauLy of maLhemaLlcal demonsLraLlons LhaL charmed ascal
and commenLs on lL: WlLhln tbot way of looklng aL Lhe world Lhese
demonsLraLlons dld have beooty. [.] Agaln, a crysLal ls noL beauLlful ln [usL any
'seLLlng' - Lhough perhaps lL always looks otttoctlve. (Cv, 79e) Pe closes Lhe
remark observlng: SLrange LhaL whole epochs can'L free Lhemselves from Lhe grlp
of cerLaln concepLs - Lhe concepL of 'beauLlful' and 'beauLy' for lnsLance. (Cv,
79e)
Maybe he ls suggesLlng LhaL beauLy has an essenLlally hlsLorlcal characLer and
LhaL we cannoL absLracL Lhe concepL of beauLy from lLs envlronmenL". Cnce Lhe
envlronmenL has changed, we have Lo free ourselves from LhaL concepL,
oLherwlse lL hlnders Lhe appreclaLlon of works of arL and oLher ob[ecLs.
WlLLgensLeln hlnLs aL Lhls rlsk also ln an lnLrlgulng remark on an observaLlon on
MozarL by Crlllparzer. 1he remark ls lnLeresLlng also because lL ls posslble Lo scenL
beLween Lhe llnes hls early ldea of Lhe beauLlful":
When Crlllparzer says MozarL counLenanced only whaL ls beauLlful" ln muslc, l Lhlnk he
means LhaL he dld noL counLenance whaL ls dlsLorLed, frlghLful, LhaL Lhere ls noLhlng
correspondlng Lo tbls ln hls muslc. l am noL saylng LhaL ls compleLely Lrue, buL even
supposlng lL Lo be so, lL ls sLlll pre[udlce on Crlllparzer's parL Lo Lhlnk LhaL by rlghL lL
oughL noL Lo be oLherwlse. 1he facL LhaL muslc slnce MozarL (and of course especlally
Lhrough 8eeLhoven) has exLended Lhe range of lLs language ls Lo be nelLher commended
nor deplored, raLher: tbls ls bow lt bos cbooqeJ. 1here ls someLhlng ungraLeful abouL
Crlllparzer's aLLlLude. uld he wanL oootbet MozarL? Could he lmaglne whaL such a belng
mlghL have composed? Could he have lmaglned MozarL lf he had noL known hlm?
1he concepL of Lhe beauLlful" has done a loL of mlschlef ln Lhls connecLlon Loo. (Cv,
33e)
[23]
1he remark ls pregnanL wlLh meanlng. l do noL even Lry Lo offer an lnLerpreLaLlon
of lL and llmlL myself Lo a couple of observaLlons. 1he flrsL ls chronologlcal:
Crlllparzer was born ln 1791, Lhe year of MozarL's deaLh. Many Lhlngs had
changed and were sLlll changlng ln AusLrlan socleLy and culLure. WlLLgensLeln hlnLs
aL how muslc slnce MozarL has changed, apparenLly suggesLlng LhaL lL ls ungraLeful
of Crlllparzer Lo [udge Lhe muslc of a perlod accordlng Lo sLandards LhaL were of a
dlfferenL Llme. Accordlng Lo WlLLgensLeln greaL arL ls expresslve of a form of llfe
and cannoL be appreclaLed wlLhouL assumlng Lhe form of llfe embodled ln lL. 1hls
ls Lrue also of MozarL's works. Cne can be nosLalglc for hls muslc, buL cannoL wanL
anoLher MozarL or oLher muslc of a MozarLlan klnd, because Lhe envlronmenL" of
LhaL muslc has changed. 1he devoLlon Lo Lhe concepL of Lhe beauLlful" prevenLs
from acknowledglng how, as a maLLer of facL LhaL should noL be deplored, muslc
has changed lLs language accordlng Lo changes ln Lhe form of llfe.
My second observaLlon ls LhaL WlLLgensLeln seems noL compleLely Lo agree
wlLh Crlllparzer's sLaLemenL LhaL MozarL counLenanced only whaL ls beauLlful" ln
muslc. l quoLed Lhe passage sklpplng lLs flrsL llnes. lL beglns by sLaLlng LhaL we can
speak of Lhe dlsLorLed ln muslc ln Lhe sense ln whlch we speak of feaLures
dlsLorLed by grlef. As feaLures are lmmedlaLely evldenL, WlLLgensLeln seems Lo
suggesL LhaL Lhere ls muslc ln whlch Lhe dlsLorLed lles, so Lo speak, aL lLs surface.
very ofLen WlLLgensLeln speaks of a face [Ceslcbt] of muslc (cf. e.g. Cv, 22e), he
furLher sLaLes LhaL Lhe face ls Lhe soul of Lhe body (cv, 23e). WlLLgensLeln does
noL say LhaL Lhe face expresses Lhe soul, raLher, he evokes someLhlng llke a bodlly
soul. 1hls does noL rule ouL LhaL Lhere ls someLhlng deep under Lhe surface, such
as a soul lo Lhe body.
ln anoLher remark on MozarL, WlLLgensLeln observes LhaL ln hls muslc faLe
[Jos 5cblcksol] plays no role of any sorL. 1haL ls noL Lhe cooceto of Lhls muslc,
Lhough MozarL could have well encounLered greaL Lragedy ln hls llfe (Cv, 81-
82e)
[24]
. ln a sense MozarL's muslc expresses lndependence from faLe and
agreemenL wlLh Lhe world
[23]
. Colng back Lo Lhe remark of Lhe Notebooks l
commenLed on ln Lhe flrsL parL of Lhls paper, lL ls LempLlng Lo Lhlnk LhaL
WlLLgensLeln sees Lhe feaLures of happlness ln Lhe beauLlful face of MozarL's
muslc. Powever, maybe he does noL see lL [usL llke Crlllparzer does. Pe dlsLances
hlmself a llLLle from Crlllparzer ln LhaL he Lakes as noL compleLely Lrue Lhe
playwrlghL's words abouL MozarL's muslc. Maybe WlLLgensLeln would llke Lo make
room for Lhe posslblllLy LhaL ln LhaL muslc Lhere ls someLhlng correspondlng Lo Lhe
dlsLorLed or frlghLful, LhaL Lhe admlLLedly beauLlful face of MozarL's muslc cannoL
be consldered Lo be all Lhere ls Lo lL. 1he beauLy of MozarL's muslc mlghL have a
depLh, lL mlghL noL merely conslsL ln lLs en[oyable characLer (cfr. 1am [2002]: 321).
ln oLher words, Lhere could be someLhlng ln lL correspondlng Lo Lhe dlsLorLed, buL
lL would be someLhlng LhaL does noL appear ln lLs surface, LhaL does noL affecL lLs
feaLures.
lf Lhls ls correcL, Lhen Schlller's llne Llfe ls serlous, arL ls gay quoLed by
WlLLgensLeln, as well as WlLLgensLeln's ldea LhaL Lhere ls someLhlng ln Lhe
concepLlon LhaL Lhe beauLlful, LhaL ls, whaL makes happy, ls Lhe end of arL,
caLches an lmporLanL feaLure of MozarL's muslc. Powever, once Lhe posslblllLy
LhaL Lhe beauLlful" has a depLh ls neglecLed, and maybe WlLLgensLeln blames
Crlllparzer for havlng neglecLed lL, whaL ls lefL ls Lhe beauLlful as Lhe merely
pleasanL, or whaL WlLLgensLeln refers Lo as whaL superflclal people call beauLy
(Cv, 79e). 1hls ls Lhe easler way ln whlch a concepL of beauLy, malnly deflned ln
formal Lerms as lL happened, for example, ln elghLeenLh-cenLury aesLheLlcs, can
be mlsundersLood. lL ls easy Lo mlsundersLand Lhe concepL of beauLy as conflnlng
beauLy Lo Lhe surface of Lhlngs, seLLlng lL aparL from any depLh, from boLh
cognlLlve and moral value. no doubL, Lhere ls mlschlef ln Lhe appreclaLlon of arL
LhaL Lhls concepLlon of Lhe beauLlful" may fosLer or make worse (cfr. Cv, 33e).
WlLLgensLeln seems Lo acknowledge LhaL Lhe envlronmenL ln whlch Lhe concepL
of beauLy had a polnL has changed, and hls observaLlon abouL Lhe mlschlef of Lhe
beauLlful" ls apparenLly connecLed Lo Lhls hlsLorlcal awareness
[26]
. Powever, l am
noL sure LhaL, ln some way allgnlng hlmself wlLh Lhe 2eltqelst, he changed hls
oplnlon abouL Lhe polnL of Lhe concepLlon LhaL Lhe end of arL ls Lhe beauLlful. A
remark from hls laLer years seems Lo conflrm LhaL he was looklng aL arL ln Lerms
LhaL were very slmllar Lo Lhose of hls earller work.
3. 5tlll wooJetloq (Aftet oll 1bese eots)
8efore commenLlng on Lhe remark l hlnLed aL, l would llke Lo make a couple of
very brlef observaLlons abouL Lwo passages from WlLLgensLeln's lectotes oo
Aestbetlcs, where he apparenLly makes room for parLlcular cases of arL
appreclaLlon. Accordlng Lo WlLLgensLeln, Lhe learnlng of rules and sLandards ls a
prerequlslLe for appreclaLlon, slnce Lhey provlde a baslc undersLandlng of Lhe arLs
of a perlod. Powever, he acknowledges LhaL Lhere ls an exLraordlnary number of
dlfferenL cases of appreclaLlon (LA, l, 21, 7), and LhaL Lhere are cases ln whlch
rules apparenLly do noL apply Lo arL. Pe ls reporLed as saylng:
We Lalked of correcLness. A good cuLLer won'L use any words excepL words llke '1oo
long', 'All rlghL'. When we Lalk of a Symphony of 8eeLhoven we don'L Lalk of correcLness.
LnLlrely dlfferenL Lhlngs enLer. Cne wouldn'L Lalk of appreclaLlng Lhe ttemeoJoos Lhlngs
ln ArL. ln cerLaln sLyles ln ArchlLecLure a door ls correcL, and Lhe Lhlng ls you appreclaLe
lL. 8uL ln Lhe case of a CoLhlc CaLhedral whaL we do ls noL aL all Lo flnd lL correcL - lL
plays an enLlrely dlfferenL role wlLh us. 1he enLlre qome ls dlfferenL. lL ls as dlfferenL as
Lo [udge a human belng and on Lhe one hand Lo say 'Pe behaves well' and on Lhe oLher
hand 'Pe made a greaL lmpresslon on me'. (LA, l, 23, 7-8)
WlLLgensLeln seems Lo make room for a klnd of evaluaLlon dlfferenL from Lhe one
ln Lerms of correcLness. 1here are cases ln whlch Lalklng of correcLness appears
lnapproprlaLe noL because Lhe work LhaL we encounLer ls noL rule-governed, buL
probably because lL made a greaL lmpresslon on us, so LhaL we feel ln some sense
domlnaLed by lL. WlLhouL belng lncorrecL, or maybe breaklng some rules, Lhe work
goes beyond Lhe ldea of correcLness. WlLLgensLeln's comparlson of such cases Lo
Lhe [udglng of a human belng ls reveallng. 8y saylng: Pe behaves well we apply
Lo anoLher person Lhe same sLandards of correcLness LhaL apply Lo us, buL when a
person makes a greaL lmpresslon on us Lhe klnd of response ls dlfferenL: we are
noL appreclaLlng her for Lhe correcLness of her behavlour (cfr. 1am [2002]: 317).
ln a laLer secLlon of Lhe lectotes, WlLLgensLeln seems Lo acknowledge LhaL noL
only Lhe crlLlcal aLLlLude of connolsseurs counLs as appreclaLlon, buL also Lhe
response Lo a work of arL LhaL could be characLerlzed as belng lmpressed by lL. Pe
speaks of a person who looks lnLensely aL a couple of palnLlngs, among Lhe few
he has seen, whlch make a profound lmpresslon on hlm (LA, l, 30, 9). 8elng
lmpressed by a work ls clearly an emoLlonal response, lf neverLheless WlLLgensLeln
calls lL appreclaLlon", presumably lL ls because he assumes LhaL lL presupposes aL
leasL an lmpllclL knowledge of Lhe rules of a genre and a culLure
[27]
. Powever, lL ls
also posslble Lo read Lhe passage as an admlsslon LhaL a sense of fasclnaLlon, of
admlraLlon could belong Lo our response Lo arL. 1hough noL every work can
command such a response, Lhere are cases ln whlch, ln our appreclaLlon of a work
of arL, lL ls essenLlal LhaL we feel enLhuslasLlc, LhaL we feel a sense of wonder
abouL lL. ln regard Lo Lhls, Lhe followlng remark of WlLLgensLeln from 1947 ls
reveallng:
1he mlracles of naLure.
Cne mlghL say: arL sbows us Lhe mlracles of naLure. lL ls based on Lhe coocept of Lhe
mlracles of naLure. (1he blossom, [usL openlng ouL. WhaL ls motvelloos abouL lL?) We
say: !usL look aL lL openlng ouL! (Cv, 36e)
1hls LexL echoes Lhe young WlLLgensLeln's ldea LhaL Lhe arLlsLlc mlracle or Lhe
arLlsLlc wonder ls LhaL whaL exlsLs does exlsL. WlLLgensLeln seems Lo conslder Lhe
concepL of mlracle or wonders of naLure as Lhe basls of arL. Agaln, noL every work
can command such a response. We should noL generallze WlLLgensLeln's clalm.
Powever, we can make room for cases ln whlch a sense of admlraLlon, or of
wonder belongs Lo our appreclaLlon of arL. SomeLlmes lL ls feellngs llke Lhese LhaL
words such as beauLlful" or marvellous" convey and when Lhls ls Lhe case, Lhey
are noL mere subsLlLuLes of lnLer[ecLlons, nor expresslons of an emoLlon. uLLered
when belng lmpressed by someLhlng, be lL Lhe openlng ouL of Lhe blossom or a
work of arL, Marvellous!" or 8eauLlful!" arLlculaLe our sense of wonder and
wonder ls more akln Lo a way of seelng Lhlngs Lhan Lo an emoLlve response.
1here ls a furLher polnL worLh noLlclng ln WlLLgensLeln's remark. 1o Lhe
quesLlon WhaL ls motvelloos abouL Lhe blossom openlng? he does noL answer
wlLh a descrlpLlon, buL wlLh an exhorLaLlon: !usL look aL lL openlng ouL!. As
1homas 1am polnLs ouL, Lhls exhorLaLlon musL be Laken as a polotloq Lo or a
sbowloq of someLhlng, raLher Lhan a mere expresslve gesLure ([2002]: 313). 1hls
suggesLs LhaL arL ls someLlmes a klnd of showlng of, slnce whaL lL polnLs Lo - Lhe
mlracles or wonders of naLure - ls beyond language and Lherefore can only be
shown. lf we connecL Lhls suggesLlon Lo Lhe ldea arLlculaLed by WlLLgensLeln ln Lhe
remark from coltote ooJ voloe, accordlng Lo whlch arL forces us Lo Lhe rlghL
perspecLlve, we have LhaL for WlLLgensLeln arL, or aL leasL some klnd of arL, ls llke
an lnvlLaLlon Lo a cerLaln klnd of experlence of conLemplaLlng an ob[ecL, and we
can see LhaL ln relaLlon Lo Lhls klnd of arL Lhe use of beauLlful" has a polnL.
Colng back Lo WlLLgensLeln's blossom example, Lhls hlnLs aL Lhe facL LhaL
flndlng someLhlng marvellous or beauLlful ls connecLed Lo paylng aLLenLlon Lo lL
and recommendlng lL Lo Lhe aLLenLlon of oLhers, whlle belng unable Lo
concepLuallze Lhe reason why lL draws our aLLenLlon. lL ls LempLlng Lo llnk Lhe
blossom example wlLh Lhe followlng passage LhaL we read ln sLudenLs' noLes from
a lecLure by WlLLgensLeln, whlch was parL of a lecLure-serles on descrlpLlon:
Cne of Lhe mosL lnLeresLlng polnLs whlch Lhe quesLlon of noL belng able Lo descrlbe ls
connecLed wlLh, [ls LhaL] Lhe lmpresslon whlch a cerLaln verse or bar ln muslc glves you
ls lndescrlbable. l don'L know whaL lL ls. [.] Look aL Lhls LranslLlon. [.] WhaL ls lL? [.].
l Lhlnk you would say lL glves you experlences whlch can'L be descrlbed. llrsL of all lL ls,
of course, noL Lrue LhaL whenever we hear a plece of muslc or a llne of poeLry whlch
lmpresses us greaLly, we say: 1hls ls lndescrlbable. 8uL lL ls Lrue LhaL agaln and agaln
we do feel lncllned Lo say: l can'L descrlbe my experlence. l have ln mlnd a case LhaL
saylng one ls lncapable of descrlblng comes from belng lnLrlgued and wootloq Lo
descrlbe, asklng oneself: WhaL ls Lhls? WhaL's he dolng, wanLlng Lo do here? - Cosh, lf l
could only say whaL he's dolng here. (LC, 37)
[28]
lollowlng a suggesLlon by Avner 8az, l speculaLe LhaL Lhls flndlng ourselves
wanLlng Lo descrlbe someLhlng LhaL we see or hear or oLherwlse encounLer and
whose descrlpLlon eludes us, geLs us close Lo Lhe use of beauLy" or beauLlful" l
am Lalklng abouL, when we reslsL Lhe LempLaLlon Lo seek Lo ground our belng so
drawn lnLo someLhlng oLher Lhan Lhe Lhlng as we experlence lL.
ln an lmporLanL sense, beauLy ls abouL Lhe presenLness of and responslveness
Lo someLhlng, and Lhere are momenLs ln whlch, by calllng a work of arL beauLlful"
we lend our volce Lo whaL ln Lhe work reveals lLself Lo us(cfr. 8az [2004]: 70)
[29]
.
ln Lhese cases lL ls noL for noL knowlng whaL ls ln lL aL all, LhaL we gape aL lL and
say: Pow beauLlful! or Pow marvellous!, raLher, lL ls because someLlmes arL
confronLs us as a mlracle or presenLs us Lhe wonder of Lhe belng Lhere of whaL
Lhere ls. ln such cases Lhe reasons of our appreclaLlon of Lhe work remaln
lneffable because we slmply cannoL puL lnLo words whaL ls beyond language.
6. cooclosloo
ln Lhls paper we have seen LhaL WlLLgensLeln denles LhaL beauLy ls a properLy and
argues LhaL ln pracLlces of arL appreclaLlon Lhe aesLheLlc ad[ecLlve beauLlful"
plays hardly any role and ls malnly used by people who lack baslc undersLandlng of
arL. lurLhermore, he acknowledges LhaL Lhe form of llfe ln whlch Lhe concepL of
beauLy had a polnL has changed. Powever, he sLlll makes room for beauLy and Lhe
beauLlful. And lL ls lnLeresLlng LhaL Lhls happens, lnsofar as he connecLs arL Lo
mlracle. lL ls because of Lhls very connecLlon LhaL l am LempLed Lo say LhaL
WlLLgensLeln's early ldea LhaL Lhere ls someLhlng ln Lhe concepLlon LhaL Lhe
beauLlful ls Lhe end of arL was sLlll allve ln hls laLer wrlLlngs. And l guess Lhe reason
ls LhaL Lhls ldea was deeply rooLed lnLo WlLLgensLeln's aLLlLude Lowards llfe.
8lbllography
8az, A., 2004: wbot's tbe lolot of collloq Oot 8eooty?, 8rlLlsh !ournal of
AesLheLlcs", 44, pp. 37-72.
8arLh, k., 2008: wolfqooq AmoJeos Mozott, Lrad. lL. C. 1ron, Cuerlnlana, 8rescla.
8udd, M., 2011: wlttqeostelo oo Aestbetlcs, ln: McClnn, M., C. kuusela, (a cura
dl), 1be OxfotJ nooJbook of wlttqeostelo, Cxford unlverslLy ress, Cxford, pp.
773-793.
lrled, M., 2008: wby lbotoqtopby Mottets os Att os Nevet 8efote, ?ale unlverslLy
ress, new Paven and London.
Ceorgel, ., 1999: uoe Jette pobllpoe, ln: Mooet. le cycle Jes Nympbos, 6 mal-
2 aoL 1999 Musee naLlonal de l'Crangerle, CaLalogue sommalre, LdlLlons de la
8eunlon des musees naLlonaux, arls, pp. 17-22.
CoyeL, C., 2011: wlttqeostelo et le motlf estbtlpoe, resses unlverslLalres de
8ennes, 8ennes.
Crlllparzer, l., 1837: 2ot Moslk, hLLp://guLenberg.splegel.de/buch/1332/1.
kraus, k.: AoJettbolb wobtbelteo. Apbotlsmeo. tos, Motol, cbtlsteotom,
hLLp://guLenberg.splegel.de/buch/4692/2.
Ma[eLschak, S., 2007: Astbetlk zot lofobtooq, !unlus, Pamburg.
McClnn, C., 2004: MloJsloqbt. lmoqe, uteom, Meooloq, Parvard unlverslLy ress,
Cambrldge (Mass.).
McCulnness, 8., 2003: oooq loJwlq. wlttqeostelo's llfe, 1889-1921, Cxford
unlverslLy ress, Cxford.
Morrls, M., 2008: wlttqeostelo ooJ tbe 1toctotos, 8ouLledge, London and new
?ork.
8owe, M. W., 2004: ctltlclsm wltboot 1beoty, ln: Lewls, . 8. (ed. by),
wlttqseostelo, Aestbetlcs ooJ lbllosopby, AshgaLe, AldershoL, pp. 73-93.
SaaLela, S., 2002: letbops tbe most lmpottoot tbloq lo coooectloo wltb
oestbetlcs. wlttqeostelo oo oestbetlc teoctloo, 8evue lnLernaLlonale de
hllosophle", 219, pp. 49-72.
Schlller, l., 1793: 0bet Jle ostbetlscbe tzlebooq Jes Meoscbeo. oq. 1toos.
lettets oo tbe Aestbetlc Jocotloo of Moo,
hLLp://www.guLenberg.org/flles/6798/6798-h/6798-h.hLm.
Schopenhauer, A., 1818
1
, 1844
2
:ule welt ols wllle ooJ votstellooq. Lng. 1rans.1be
wotlJ os wlll ooJ kepteseototloo, Lrans. by L. l. !. ayne, uover ubllcaLlons,
new ?ork, 1969.
SchulLe, !., 2004: 1be 8ollJets looqooqe - 1be Opeoloq 5ectloos, ln: Ammereller,
L., llscher, L. (a cura dl), wlttqeostelo ot wotk. MetboJ lo tbe lbllosopblcol
lovestlqotloos, 8ouLledge, London and new ?ork, pp. 22-41.
1ham, 1., 2002: Oo wooJet, Appteclotloo, ooJ tbe 1temeoJoos lo wlttqeostelo's
Aestbetlcs, 8rlLlsh !ournal of AesLheLlcs", 42, pp. 310-322.
1odorov, 1., 2002: loqlo Jel pootlJlooo. 5oqqlo sollo plttoto olooJese Jel
5elceoto, Lrad. lL. dl 8. de Mambro SanLos, Apelron, 8oma.
Wllde, C., 2004: tblcs ooJ Aestbetlcs ote Ooe, ln: Lewls, . 8. (a cura dl),
wlttqseostelo, Aestbetlcs ooJ lbllosopby, AshgaLe, AldershoL, pp. 163-184.
Wllke, A., 2012: wlttqeostelos lbllosopble Jet koost, WlLLgensLeln-SLudlen", 3,
pp. 133-183.
[1]
AbbrevlaLlons for WlLLgensLeln's works ln Lhe LexL are as follows: Awl = wlttqeostelos
lectotes. combtlJqe, 19J2-19J5, ed. by A. Ambrose, 8lackwell, Cxford 1979, 88 = L.
WlLLgensLeln, 1be 8loe ooJ 8towo 8ooks, Parper 1orchbooks, new ?ork 1938, cv = L.
WlLLgensLeln, coltote ooJ voloe, ed. by C. P. von WrlghL ln collaboraLlon wlLh P. nyman,
Lransl. by . Wlnch, 8lackwell, Cxford 1980, lc = lectotes ooJ coovetsotloos oo Aestbetlcs,
lsycboloqy & kellqloos 8ellef, ed. by Cyrll 8arreLL, 8lackwell, Cxford 1966, lA = lectotes oo
Aestbetlcs (ln lc), l = WlLLgensLeln's LecLure on LLhlcs", 1be lbllosopblcol kevlew, 74 (1963),
3-12, N8 = Notebooks 1914-1916, ed. by C. P. von WrlghL and C. L. M. Anscombe wlLh an
Lngllsh LranslaLlon by C. L. M. Anscombe, 8lackwell, Cxford 1961, 1ll = 1toctotos loqlco-
pbllosopblcos, wlLh an lnLroducLlon by 8. 8ussell, 8ouLledge & kegan aul, London 1931
3
.
8eferences Lo Awl, 88, cv and l are by page number, references Lo lA are Lo secLlon and
page number, references Lo 1ll are Lo secLlon number, references Lo N8 are by enLry daLe.
[2]
lL ls sLrlklng LhaL when he wroLe hls s enLry on Lhe beauLlful as Lhe end of arL, Marcel
uuchamp had already creaLed hls 8lcycle wbeel (1913), 1be 8ottle kock (1914) and lo AJvooce
of tbe 8tokeo Atm (1913), wlLh Lhe clear lnLenLlon Lo break wlLh Lhe caLegory of Lhe beauLlful
and Lhe noLlon of LasLe. Cn Lhe alm of arL WlLLgensLeln seems more ln accord wlLh Lhe elderly
Claude MoneL. ln Lhose same years when WlLLgensLeln was aL Lhe fronL llne, MoneL was
worklng aL hls wotet-lllles wlLh Lhe lnLenLlon Lo offer Lo Lhe lrench people, LraumaLlzed by Lhe
war, Lhe repalrer slghL of Lhe cosmlc order and Lhe consolaLlon of beauLy (Ceorgel [1999]: 18
my LranslaLlon).
[3]
1hls ls how, e.g. SLefan Ma[eLschak (2007): 92-93, 134-141 lnLerpreLs Lhe above passages.
[4]
Whlle Lhe ordlnary way of seelng conslders Lhe facLs belng one speclflc way raLher Lhan
anoLher, Lhe Lhlng seen sob specle oetetoltotls ls Lhe Lhlng seen LogeLher wlLh Lhe whole
loglcal space (n8, 7.10.16), LhaL ls, seen wlLh a consclousness [.] of Lhe way ln whlch lL
can be comblned wlLh oLher Lhlngs (Morrls [2008]: 326). ComblnaLlons of ob[ecLs are facLs,
and facLs ln loglcal space are Lhe world. When a Lhlng ls conLemplaLed LogeLher wlLh Lhe whole
loglcal space, or as capable of shaplng Lhe loglcal space, lL becomes Lhe world of Lhe observer.
[3]
An aphorlsm by karl kraus sLaLes: Llebe und kunsL umarmen nlchL, was schn lsL, sondern
was eben dadurch schn wlrd (hLLp://guLenberg.splegel.de/buch/4692/2).
[6]
WhaL, accordlng Lo Schlller, frees us from Lhe serlousness of reallLy ls a condlLlon LhaL he
descrlbes uslng Lhe world play". now, noLhlng of whaL Schlller summarlzes wlLh Lhe Lerm
duLy" and desLlny" ceases Lo exlsL (Schlller, leLLer 13). 8aLher, whaL characLerlzes Lhe
condlLlon of play ls LhaL Lhe elemenL of consLralnL presenL ln our needs and duLles ls overcome,
ls made conLlngenL. Powever, LogeLher wlLh necesslLy ls also conLlngency LhaL ls overcome.
1herefore, Schlller malnLalns LhaL when a human belng ls ln Lhe condlLlon of play, she ls really
free, LhaL ls, she reallzes her desLlnaLlon (cfr. Schlller, leLLer 14). Accordlng Lo hlm, lL ls arL and
beauLy LhaL brlng Lhe human belng Lo Lhls condlLlon where Lhe capaclLles of Lhlnklng and acLlng
can flourlsh. lor Schlller, whaL arL dellvers ls a sense of our desLlnaLlon. Maybe l am readlng
Loo much lnLo WlLLgensLeln's quoLe from Schlller, buL lL ls LempLlng Lo Lhlnk LhaL WlLLgensLeln
was famlllar wlLh Lhese ldeas.
[7]
1haL beauLy" as well as good" ls a Lerm for whaL ls of value ls conflrmed by Lhe Lhesls of
Lhe 1toctotos LhaL eLhlcs and aesLheLlcs are one (1L, 6.421) and also by whaL we read aL Lhe
beglnnlng of WlLLgensLeln's lectote oo etblcs: l'm golng Lo use Lhe Lerm LLhlcs [.] ln a sense
[.] whlch lncludes whaL l belleve Lo be Lhe mosL essenLlal parL of whaL ls generally called
AesLheLlcs. [.] now lnsLead of saylng LLhlcs ls Lhe enqulry lnLo whaL ls good" l could have sald
LhaL LLhlcs ls Lhe enqulry lnLo whaL ls valuable, or, lnLo whaL ls really lmporLanL, or l could have
sald LLhlcs ls Lhe enqulry lnLo Lhe meanlng of llfe, or lnLo whaL makes llfe worLh llvlng, or lnLo
Lhe rlghL way of llvlng (LL, 4-3).
[8]
Cn conLlnulLles and changes ln WlLLgensLeln's concepLlon of arL see now Wllke (2012).
[9]
Mlchael lrled con[olns lL Lo Lhe [usL recalled noLe from coltote ooJ voloe ln a revelaLory and
suggesLlve way (cfr. lrled [2008]: 63-93).
[10]
As we have seen, accordlng Lo WlLLgensLeln arL compels us Lo Lhe rlghL perspecLlve. Pow lL
can force" us ls an lnLeresLlng quesLlon LhaL l cannoL pursue here. Powever, as for uuLch
palnLlng, lL seems posslble Lo con[ecLure LhaL Lhe shlfLlng of our aLLenLlon from Lhe scene
represenLed, Lo lLs quallLy of absorpLlon - Lo use lrled's noLlon - occurs noL only because very
ofLen Lhe deplcLed sub[ecLs are Lhemselves absorbed ln Lhelr acLlons, buL also because Lhe
palnLer appears Lo be absorbed ln Lhem hlmself. Pls aLLenLlveness and lnLeresL ln Lhe scene,
Lhe meLlculousness, commlLmenL and lnLenslLy wlLh whlch he palnLs lL, suggesL Lhe scene may
deserve Lhe beholder's aLLenLlon and makes slgnlflcanL whaL ls ln lLself lnslgnlflcanL.
[11]
As a reader of Schopenhauer, WlLLgensLeln could have had ln mlnd a passage from secLlon
38 of book 3 of Lhe wotlJ, where Schopenhauer hlnLs aL uuLch palnLlng. lurLher, he may have
found ln Lhe followlng passage an aLLlLude slmllar Lo Lhe one exempllfled by uuLch palnLlng:
Lvery sLaLe or condlLlon, every person, every scene of llfe, needs Lo be apprehended only
pure ob[ecLlvely, and made Lhe ob[ecL of a descrlpLlon or skeLch, wheLher wlLh brush or wlLh
words, ln order Lo appear lnLeresLlng, dellghLful, and envlable. (Schopenhauer [1818
1
, 1844
2
]:
371, 5oppl., 8ook 3, cap. 30)
[12]
Slnce our human form of llfe ls essenLlally culLural, WlLLgensLeln usually connecLs aesLheLlc
pracLlces also Lo Lhe culLure of a perlod. Pe sLaLes LhaL Lhe words we call expresslons of
aesLheLlc [udgmenL play a very compllcaLed role, buL a very deflnlLe role, ln whaL we call a
culLure of a perlod. 1o descrlbe Lhelr use [.] you have Lo descrlbe a culLure. [.] WhaL belongs
Lo a language game ls a whole culLure. (LA, l 23-26, 8)
[13]
l owe Lhls suggesLlon Lo Mark 8owe. needless Lo say, we are deallng wlLh more or less
fragmenLary noLes, Laken by sLudenLs who aLLended WlLLgensLeln's classes. 1hough many of
Lhese noLes record sponLaneous remarks more Lhan arLlculaLed oplnlons, Lhey offer a clear
ldea of WlLLgensLeln's new approach Lo Lhe Loplc arL and beauLy", when compared Lo Lhe
Notebook and Lhe 1toctotos.
[14]
ln Lhe 8loe 8ook WlLLgensLeln speaks of our cravlng for generallLy and assoclaLes lL Lo
Lendencles connecLed wlLh parLlcular phllosophlcal confuslons. Pe descrlbes some of Lhese
Lendencles and lL ls lnLeresLlng LhaL Lhe flrsL one he names, LhaL ls Lhe Lendency Lo look for
someLhlng ln common Lo all Lhe enLlLles whlch we commonly subsume under a general Lerm,
ls Lhen exempllfled wlLh Lhe Lerm beauLy" among oLhers: 1he ldea of a general concepL
belng a common properLy of lLs parLlcular lnsLances connecLs up wlLh oLher prlmlLlve, Loo
slmple, ldeas of Lhe sLrucLure of language. lL ls comparable Lo Lhe ldeas LhaL ptopettles are
loqteJleots of Lhe Lhlngs whlch have Lhe properLles, e.g. LhaL beauLy ls an lngredlenL of all
beauLlful Lhlngs as alcohol ls of beer and wlne, and LhaL we Lherefore could have pure beauLy,
unadulLeraLed by anyLhlng LhaL ls beauLlful. (88, 17)
[13]
WhaL makes beauLlful" an lnLer[ecLlon of approval, WlLLgensLeln noLlces, ls Lhe game lL
appears ln, Lhe occaslon on whlch lL ls sald. Pe conslders as Lhe maln mlsLake of Lhe
phllosophers of hls generaLlon, LhaL when Lhey look aL language, Lhey look aL Lhe form of
senLences. Language - he has reporLedly sald - ls a characLerlsLlc parL of a large group of
acLlvlLles, Lherefore, we should concenLraLe on Lhe enormously compllcaLed slLuaLlon ln
whlch Lhe aesLheLlc expresslon has a place. (LA, l, 3, 2, 2)
[16]
Cn Lhe noLlon of prlmlLlve language see SchulLe (2004).
[17]
WlLLgensLeln wrlLes ln 1937: 1he orlgln & Lhe prlmlLlve form of Lhe language-game ls a
reacLlon: only upon Lhls can Lhe more compllcaLed forms grow (Cv, 31e). lL ls worLh quoLlng a
passage from Lhe 8loe 8ook (1933-1934) ln whlch WlLLgensLeln explalns whaL he means wlLh
Lhe expresslon language game" and why he belleves lL useful Lo conslder Lhese prlmlLlve
forms of language: [.] whaL l shall call language game [.] are ways of uslng slgns slmpler
Lhan Lhose ln whlch we use Lhe slgns of our hlghly compllcaLed everyday language. Language
games are Lhe forms of language wlLh whlch a chlld beglns Lo make use of words. [.] When we
look aL such slmple forms of language Lhe menLal mlsL whlch seems Lo enshroud our ordlnary
use of language dlsappears. We see acLlvlLles, reacLlons, whlch are clear-cuL and LransparenL.
Cn Lhe oLher hand we recognlze ln Lhese slmple processes forms of language noL separaLed by
a break from our more compllcaLed ones (88, 17). AcLually, lL ls by percelvlng Lhem as parL of
our form of llfe LhaL Lhey can funcLlon as a model for comparlson. lL does noL come as a
surprlse, LhaL WlLLgensLeln conslders aesLheLlc reacLlons perhaps Lhe mosL lmporLanL Lhlng ln
connecLlon wlLh aesLheLlcs (LA, ll 10, 13). lor Lhe lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhls clalm of WlLLgensLeln
see SaaLela (2002).
[18]
As Slmo SaaLela polnLs ouL commenLlng on WlLLgensLeln's lectotes oo Aestbetlcs, an
aesLheLlc reacLlon essenLlally lnvolves an lnLenLlonal elemenL and ls concepLually dependenL
upon our percelvlng Lhe ob[ecL ln a cerLaln way (SaaLela [2002]: 62). Pe furLher observes LhaL
whaL ls lnLeresLlng when aesLheLlcs ls concerned ls noL prlmarlly whaL l feel or experlence, buL
lnsLead Lhe ob[ecL of my reacLlon [.] whaL exacLly dlsgusLed or dellghLed me, l.e., Lhe ob[ecL of
my dlsgusL or dellghL (SaaLela [2002]: 63).
[19]
As 1homas 1am polnLs ouL, had WlLLgensLeln consLrued lnLer[ecLlons as forms of aesLheLlc
reacLlon, he would noL have repeaLedly asserLed LhaL aesLheLlc ad[ecLlves, as words of
approval or dlsapproval, play hardly any role ln aesLheLlcs. (1am [2002]: 314)
[20]
l owe Lhls phraslng Lo CoyeL (2011): 64.
[21]
8y Lalklng abouL rules, WlLLgensLeln sLresses Lhe embeddedness of appreclaLlon ln a
culLure and a form of llfe, lLs hlsLorlcally speclflc characLer (cfr. LA, l, 20, 7, l 24-29, 8-9, l 33, 11
and Cv, 80e and 96e). As 1homas 1am wrlLes, lL ls Lhe whole culLure of a perlod LhaL renders
posslble a cerLaln form of appreclaLlon and glves lL meanlng (1am [2002]: 319). 1he learnlng
of rules and sLandards ls lmporLanL, slnce Lhey provlde a baslc undersLandlng of Lhe arLs, so
LhaL a person, ln conslderlng, say, an elghLeenLh cenLury sonneL, aL leasL knows whaL she ls
Lalklng abouL.
[22]
ln Ambrose's noLes WlLLgensLeln ls reporLed as saylng LhaL aesLheLlc dlscusslon ls
someLhlng LhaL goes on lnslde Lhe range of llkes and dlsllkes (AWL, 38). lL ls posslble LhaL by
saylng 1hls ls beauLlful one ls respondlng Lo Lhe value she recognlzes ln an ob[ecL or, more
preclsely, one ls noLlng Lhe value of Lhe ob[ecL wlLh pleasure - obvlously, admlraLlon ls noL
necessarlly pleasurable, buL l doubL someone would use beauLlful" lf her admlraLlon for
someLhlng were noL pleasurable. As we have seen, ln a remark from coltote ooJ voloe
WlLLgensLeln lmaglnes Lo say LhaL Lhe eyes of a person are beauLlful and, belng asked why he
flnds Lhem beauLlful, Lo reply LhaL he flnds beauLlful Lhe almond shape, long eye-lashes,
dellcaLe llds (Cv, 24e). Pe clearly lmaglnes hlmself descrlblng quallLles of Lhe eyes LhaL make
hlm appreclaLe Lhem or LhaL are Lhe reason for hls calllng Lhe eyes beauLlful. ln cases llke Lhls,
beauLlful" ls noL Lhe name of an lngredlenL of Lhlngs, however, lL also ls noL Lhe mere
expresslon of a feellng as a sub[ecLlve sLaLe, raLher, lL expresses a klnd of value or merlL we
aLLrlbuLe Lo Lhlngs on Lhe ground of Lhelr possesslng cerLaln oLher (aesLheLlc) quallLles. 1hese
quallLles are reasons for exclalmlng Pow beauLlful!, Lhough, Lo use an expresslon by Mark
8owe, lL ls noL by teosooloq LhaL one arrlve aL [udgmenLs llke 1hls melody ls beauLlful. Cfr.
8owe (2004): 89 and 84-91 for a convlnclng defence of Lhe ldea LhaL crlLlcal dlscusslons can
only Lake place wlLhln an affecLlve response. (8owe [2004]: 91)
[23]
Crlllparzer (1837) wroLe: Shakespeare could employ Lhe horrlble, MozarL's llmlL was Lhe
beauLlful.
[24]
WhaL 8rlan McCulnness recalls wlLh regard Lo SchuberL ls lnLeresLlng. Pe wrlLes LhaL
WlLLgensLeln was aLLracLed by SchuberL also for a reason ln whlch Lhe eLhlcal and Lhe
aesLheLlc were lnLerLwlned: Lhe conLrasL of Lhe mlsery of hls llfe and Lhe absence of all Lrace of
lL ln hls muslc, Lhe absence of all blLLerness. (McCulnness [2003]: 124)
[23]
Accordlng Lo Lhe Lheologlan karl 8arLh, whaL ln MozarL's muslc Louches and sooLhes Lhe
soul ls Lhls: lL seems Lo come from a helghL [.] from whlch you can conLemplaLe LogeLher, ln
Lhelr reallLy buL also Lhelr llmlLaLlons, Lhe brlghL and Lhe dark slde of exlsLence and Lherefore
Lhe [oy and paln, good and evll, llfe and deaLh. (8arLh [2008]: 22, my LranslaLlon)
[26]
We read ln a remark from 1949: My own Lhlnklng abouL arL and values ls far more
dlslllusloned Lhan would have been posslble for someone 100 years ago. 1haL doesn'L mean,
Lhough, LhaL lL's more correcL on LhaL accounL. lL only means LhaL l have examples of
degeneraLlon ln Lhe forefronL of my mlnd whlch were noL ln Lhe foteftoot of men's mlnd Lhen.
(Cv, 79e)
[27]
A slmllar polnL ls made by 1am (2002): 322.
[28]
My aLLenLlon was drawn Lo Lhls LexL by 8az (2004): 69-70.
[29]
Also ln Lhe experlence of arL we encounLer Lhe mlracle of Lhe LhaL lL ls of Lhe world,
preclsely because arL ls ulLlmaLely lnexpllcable.
Firenze University Press
Borgo Albizi, 28 - 50122 Firenze
Tel. (0039) 055 2757700 Fax (0039) 055 2757712
E-mail: journals@fupress.com