In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Realism ousted alternative systems from the creative disciplines, and Stalin’s ‘wedding-cakes’ replaced the cool geometries o fConstructivism.But the lessons of Constructivism were not totally forgottenand ,ironically, Constructivist buildingscontinued to grace Western, capitalist cities-a paradox that Kopp chooses to disregard. True, a detailed discussion of the destiny of Constructivism outside of the Soviet Union and its rehabilitation in the 1960s inside the Soviet Union goes outside the framework of Kopp’s appreciation , but even so some sense of its later historical perspective would have been welcome. One also might quibblewith the choice of photographs (the majority of them have been reproduced before and many times)and with the rather desultory bibliography (which omits, for example, Christina Lodder’s monograph on Constructivism published by Yale University Press in 1983). Nevertheless, these are minor failings when considered alongside theauthor’s sincereand forthright account of Constructivist architecture, perhaps the greatest material product of the Russian avant-garde. THE AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE: AN ANTHROPOLOGIST LOOKS AT THE VISUAL ARTS by Jacques Maquet. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1986. 272 pp., illus. Trade, $35.00. ISBN: 0300033427. Reviewed by Allan Shields, 4890 Old Highway, Mariposa, CA 95338, U.S.A. “In this book, an anthropologist looks at the visual arts. This is not a striking first line. Yet I cannot find a better description of the approach that is developed here” (p. 1). So begins this puzzling treatise. In the next sentences, Maquet asserts that it is not a work in anthropology, but is the result of his various intellectual excitements over the years-law, philosophy, sociology,Marxism, Freudianism,existentialism ,phenomenology, etc. “An anthropologist ’s views are not anthropology” (p. I). By p. 249, he has coined the term ‘aesthetic anthropology’ to describe his multi-faceted approach to aesthetics and visual arts. Herein lies the puzzle, for his ‘aesthetic anthropology’ is neither mainstream anthropology nor mainstream aesthetics. More about this later. Maquet’s intentions are to research, through his protocol experience phenomenologically , the meaning of art and aesthetic experience in some of the world’s cultures. Through a profusion of illustrations, he talks out his unique excursus in the visual arts, essentially proceeding da now from a posited naive view, building to an informed theoretical view of art in universal human culture, so far as he is able. During the process, the reader is offered a share in his personal tour and is presumed willing to accept argumentand conclusionsMaquet believes he has discovered and/or proved. Thework isdirected to readers interested in art appreciation and history. It is possible that some anthropologists will find fruitful suggestions for their work in this cross-disciplinary effort. It is evident that the author has traveled the world over-several timeslived and worked in Africa, contemplated and meditated in the Far East (under instruction) and, wildest of all, become resident in Los Angeles, California. Also evident is his academic independence. Categories, departments of knowledge, disciplines do not restrain or confine his intellectual drive. It is refreshingto find a fertile mind willing to range, enjoying the process of ‘cross-fertilization’ of ideas among related studies. Unfortunately, ‘cross-sterilization’ is the great hazard in a lack of discipline among skills that demand rigorous study and criticism by one’s colleagues. Where Maquet’s work suffers most is on the topics he intends to advance the most: aesthetic experience, the philosophy of art, the psychology of aesthetic appreciation , aesthetic judgment and related topics. For example, though he notes Thomas Munro’s early work on Oriental and African art, he fails to mention the immense contributions Munro made to philosophic aesthetics for over three decades. He quotes with approval Harold Osborne’s work, The Art o f Appreciation, mentioning only Osborne’s elementary distinctions but virtually ignoring their arguments. Maquet drops into his discussion the concept of ‘aesthetic distance’ (Chapter 14)without even mentioning the name of Edward Bullough (p. 32), and going to the length of creating a neologism: “distanciates” (pp. 163-64). (Perhaps he confused the term with the adjective ‘distantial’.) In this same vein, Maquet seriously advances distinctions as though they were discoveries of his phenomenology. For instance, he distinguishes ‘disinterestedness ’from ‘uninterestedness’, a distinction that both is...

pdf

Share