Daniel D.

A biased and dull overview of Aesthetics, definitively not introductory. The author has let his preferences over marxism and "criticism of the subject" stain a book that should have been about the evolution of Art and Beauty (and other categories) over the centuries. An objective proof of my statement is the word count: The word "capitalism" appears as much as the word "aesthetics" and way more than the word "art". While the book starts OK, you realize the author had bad faith in presenting the topics when he misrepresents the work of Kant by showing only his ideas on the "sublime", only to frame them immediately after as if they were already proven wrong and surpassed. The author spends about half of the book reviewing ideas of marxism on aesthetics (which summarizes to "muh use art to criticize capitalism") and criticisms on the idea of the "subject" and "alterity" (a topic of philosophy I personally dislike). The author spends another third of the book in post-modern art. Personal tastes aside, spending as much time (if not more) in the last century of aesthetics as in the last two millennia is the definition of misrepresentation. Another criticism I have is the underexplained topics of the book. I understand the author does not have enough time to explain the full train of thought of the philosophers he is citing, but instead of summarizing the ideas in his own words, the author only throws concepts, names and references without developing. The only merits of this book are its art (which I find sympathetic) and the remaining sixth of the content that is not polluted with the author’s awful taste in philosophy.