Final answer:
Frank Sibley argues that people justify aesthetic judgments subjectively, without concrete rules, but with sensitivity to details and discernment of sensory observations. Philosophers like Kant and Hume echo this thought, underscoring taste as both personal and influenced by culture, education, and refinement. Historical and cultural contexts also critically inform art analysis beyond mere aesthetics.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to Frank Sibley, people justify aesthetic judgments not through necessary rules, but rather by employing sensitivity to detail and discernment. Sibley makes a distinction between simple sensory observations and the judgments that arise from them, suggesting that the same artwork can evoke different aesthetic evaluations among different people. He points out that while one might see a blue palette in a painting and call it melancholic, another might view the same and conclude it to be calm. This suggests that the judgments are subjective, though they are often grounded in sensory experiences.
Furthermore, as discussions in aesthetic theory suggest, including those by philosophers such as Kant and Hume, these judgments are inherently subjective but are also influenced by cultural and educational backgrounds, as well as personal development and refinement. Kant posited that beauty inspires people to appreciate good, and Hume believed that taste could be cultivated. Nonetheless, both acknowledge the lack of an absolute standardized criterion for beauty and art, as these are laden with social constructs and vary across societies.
Ultimately, Sibley aligns with the notion that aesthetic judgments are personal and cannot be unequivocally proven as true or false using a universal schema. Aesthetic appreciation is further complicated by the context in which art is created and perceived, where historical and cultural contexts play a s