While many of us consider beauty and art integral to living a good life, certain aesthetic practices can actually be damaging to others. While Baroque artist Artemisia Gentileschi used her art to gain justice as a victim of sexual violence, other artists like Paul Gauguin used their art for immoral purposes. And moreover, our aesthetic surroundings in general make a difference to human flourishing. A beautiful sea-view is often experienced as calming, while many of us feel the everyday pains of today’s bodily beauty standards. So, are we being wronged when we are denied certain aesthetic experiences? Do we have a right to beauty? And how should we curate and respond to problematic art and artists? 

This module will combine aesthetics, philosophy of language, and political philosophy, to develop an understanding of the emerging concept of ‘aesthetic injustice’. We will discuss how artworks can be harmful, and explore the emerging question of whether we can be wronged or wrong others in a distinctively aesthetic way.

• Summarise and explain philosophical issues related to the nature of aesthetic injustice as a distinctive concept, and the main theoretical frameworks for understanding and explaining how artworks can harm others, how we should manage dangerous art, and how aesthetic experiences function in our political and moral lives.
• Construct arguments, both verbally and in written work, drawing on relevant work in philosophy and art history, using well-chosen examples with close visual analysis.
• Work independently

   

The module will be delivered through a mix of large group and small group sessions, including, where relevant, asynchronous materials such as lecture recordings. Full details on the delivery mode of this module will be available on Learning Central at the start of the academic year.

Transferable / Employability Skills: 

It is worth bearing in mind that, even though the point of the module is to do philosophy, many of the skills you’ll be developing are also highly valued by graduate employers. These include: 

• Critical Thinking: e.g. the ability to understand, structure and critically evaluate the key points and arguments made in written texts and discussions––achieved through e.g. reading, small group activities in lectures and seminars, plenary discussions in seminars, reflecting on lecture materials, essay and exam preparation and writing. 

• Communication: the ability to formulate and articulate your critical thinking, both orally and on paper, in ways that others can grasp and engage with––achieved through e.g. small group work in seminars, seminar discussions, essay/exam writing. 

• Organisation: the ability to organise and coordinate workloads––achieved through balancing e.g. reading, seminar preparation, essay/exam preparation. 

• Working with others: e.g. co-constructing ideas, responding sensitively to others––achieved through e.g. small group work in seminars, group presentations. 

Essay 1: 50%

Essay 2: 50%

This module is assessed according to the Marking Criteria set out in the Philosophy Course Guide. There are otherwise no academic or competence standards which limit the availability of adjustments or alternative assessments for students with disabilities. 

Topics covered on the module may include the below (note they are subject to change).

Part I Unjust Aesthetics

• The problem of immoral artists

Many artists who have created great art have done bad things in their lives. When we encounter art made by an immoral artist, can we separate the art from the artist? Should we? We will explore how an artist’s immorality might contaminate their art.

• Feminist and anti-racist aesthetic perception

 The aesthetic gaze has historically been objectifying – many Western artworks depict women as passive and servile, and we the viewer are invited to participate in this problematic gaze. We will examine how to understand aesthetic perception itself as something politically and morally coded.

• Art as hate speech

Artworks not only depict or represent things, but also may perform actions normally associated with speech, like assertion, protest, or even subordination. So, can an artwork be a kind of hate speech, by performing oppressive speech acts?

• Censorship and cancel culture

If artworks can indeed be harmful to social groups, how should we manage this? We will look at strategies such as iconoclasm,  ‘artistic counterspeech’ and curatorial ethics to derail dangerous art.

Part II Aesthetic Injustice

• The nature of aesthetic injustice

We have a right to life, a right to vote, and a right to a fair trial. But do we have a right to beauty? We will have seen how artworks can cause and enact harms to social groups, and how aesthetic objects can be used for immoral purposes. But is there a distinctively aesthetic moral wrong; are we morally wronged when we are denied aesthetic experiences and expression?

• Problem of cultural appropriation

When a White person dons a Native American headdress to a party, are they doing something wrong? Many cultures have expressed offence at the misuse of their sacred aesthetic objects, but what exactly is the moral wrong here? We will explore the nature of cultural appropriation and the aesthetic harms it may or may not engender.

• Environmental aesthetics

Green spaces and nature have been shown to improve our mental and physical health. But they also affect us aesthetically. We’ll look at how landscapes and town-planning can affect our aesthetic lives, and whether being deprived of certain environments can harm us in a distinctively aesthetic way.

• Toxic beauty

Beauty standards are infamously shifting and objectifying, causing mental and physical damage, especially to women. But are we also being harmed in an aesthetic way? Are we wronged when society deprives us of the ability to feel or see ourselves as beautiful?