The Standard of Beauty: On the Universality and Cultural Particularity of Criteria for Aesthetic Appreciation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64504/artsappreciation.v1i1.881Keywords:
aesthetic criteria, aesthetic universality, cultural particularity, hierarchical nested model, cross-cultural aestheticsAbstract
The tension between the universality and cultural particularity of aesthetic criteria represents one of the most persistently contested propositions in the history of aesthetics. This paper engages three analytical frameworks — philosophical, anthropological, and cognitive-scientific — to systematically examine the Western aesthetic canon from Plato's theory of Forms to Kant’s Critique of Judgment, from Hegel’s historicism to Bourdieu’s cultural capital theory, set in comparative dialogue with the Chinese aesthetic tradition represented by Zong Baihua and Li Zehou. Integrating findings from neuroaesthetics and cross-cultural empirical studies, we propose a Hierarchical Nested Model (HNM) that distinguishes three strata of aesthetic judgment: a biological substrate layer (shared perceptual preferences shaped by evolutionary selection pressures), a cognitive schema layer (aesthetic frameworks acquired through early cultural habituation), and a cultural coding layer (symbolic conventions produced within specific historical contexts). The model demonstrates that universality and particularity are not polar opposites but are each justified at different levels of analysis. This research carries direct methodological implications for cross-cultural arts education, museum display practice, and the construction of critical discourse in a globalized context.
The tension between the universality and cultural particularity of aesthetic criteria represents one of the most persistently contested propositions in the history of aesthetics. This paper engages three analytical frameworks — philosophical, anthropological, and cognitive-scientific — to systematically examine the Western aesthetic canon from Plato's theory of Forms to Kant's Critique of Judgment, from Hegel's historicism to Bourdieu's cultural capital theory, set in comparative dialogue with the Chinese aesthetic tradition represented by Zong Baihua and Li Zehou. Integrating findings from neuroaesthetics and cross-cultural empirical studies, we propose a Hierarchical Nested Model (HNM) that distinguishes three strata of aesthetic judgment: a biological substrate layer (shared perceptual preferences shaped by evolutionary selection pressures), a cognitive schema layer (aesthetic frameworks acquired through early cultural habituation), and a cultural coding layer (symbolic conventions produced within specific historical contexts). The model demonstrates that universality and particularity are not polar opposites but are each justified at different levels of analysis. This research carries direct methodological implications for cross-cultural arts education, museum display practice, and the construction of critical discourse in a globalized context.
References
References
[1]Kant, I. (2000). Critique of the power of judgment (P. Guyer & E. Matthews, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1790)
[2]Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1979)
[3]Plato. (1992). The republic (G. M. A. Grube, Trans.). Hackett Publishing. (Original work published c. 380 BCE)
[4]Hegel, G. W. F. (1975). Aesthetics: Lectures on fine art (T. M. Knox, Trans., Vol. 1). Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1835)
[5]Hume, D. (1757). Of the standard of taste. In Four dissertations (pp. 203–240). A. Millar.
[6]Zong, B. H. (1981). Aesthetic Strolling [Meixue Sanbu] [Aesthetic strolling]. Shanghai People’s Publishing House.
[7]Li, Z. H. (1981). The Path of Beauty [Mei De Licheng] [The path of beauty: A study of Chinese aesthetics]. Cultural Relics Publishing House.
[8]Zeki, S. (1999). Inner vision: An exploration of art and the brain. Oxford University Press.
[9]Chatterjee, A., & Vartanian, O. (2014). Neuroaesthetics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(7), 370–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.003
[10]Vessel, E. A., Starr, G. G., & Rubin, N. (2012). The brain on art: Intense aesthetic experience activates the default mode network. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, Article 66. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00066
[11]Masuda, T., Gonzalez, R., Kwan, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (2008). Culture and aesthetic preference: Comparing the attention to context of East Asians and Americans. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(9), 1260–1275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208320555
[12]Leder, H., Gerger, G., Dressler, S. G., & Schabmann, A. (2012). How art is appreciated. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(1), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026396
[13]Tschacher, W., Greenwood, S., Kirchberg, V., Wintzerith, S., van den Berg, K., & Tröndle, M. (2012). Physiological correlates of aesthetic perception of artworks in a museum. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(1), 96–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025912
[14]Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
[15]Dissanayake, E. (1992). Homo aestheticus: Where art comes from and why. Free Press.
[16]Dickie, G. (1974). Art and the aesthetic: An institutional analysis. Cornell University Press.
[17]Orians, G. H., & Heerwagen, J. H. (1992). Evolved responses to landscapes. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 555–579). Oxford University Press.
[18]Fritz, T., Jentschke, S., Gosselin, N., Sammler, D., Peretz, I., Turner, R., Friederici, A. D., & Koelsch, S. (2009). Universal recognition of three basic emotions in music. Current Biology, 19(7), 573–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.02.058
[19]Mehr, S. A., Singh, M., Knox, D., Ketter, D. M., Pickens-Jones, D., Atwood, S., … Glowacki, L. (2019). Universality and diversity in human song. Science, 366(6468), eaax0868. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0868
