Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
The digital environment creates its own dimension of what is ethically, morally and morally acceptable and, on the contrary, unacceptable, due to the fact that this environment is manipulated by humans. But since the network is not just a metaphor, but also our relatively new material reality, it must also be described by some aesthetic categories. This paper will stress the fact that digitalization has significantly changed the perception of artworks and the process of aesthetic experience as a whole.
Before foraging into the recent changes to aesthetic experiences, it is necessary to define the basic concepts of aesthetics. The perception, interpretation, and appreciation of beauty are all included in the definition of aesthetics (Heshmat). We experience a wide range of feelings when we are in the presence of beautiful things, including intrigue, awe, and admiration (Heshmat). Admiring human creations like artworks or natural phenomena can lead to aesthetic experiences (Heshmat). Experiences in the arts are emotionally gratifying and fulfilling. For instance, nature sceneries like sunrises and sunsets frequently elicit positive emotions like harmony, calm, and relaxation (Heshmat). However, it is necessary to divide art from aesthetic experience. Aesthetics is the consumer’s perspective, whereas art is the process of doing or making aesthetically pleasing things (Heshmat). Thus, aesthetic experience is an emotionally fulfilling perception of beauty, either man-made or natural.
Knowing the definition of aesthetic experience, it is important to know the key features of it. Firstly, aesthetic experience has no other goal other than the pleasure derived from it (Heshmat). Works of art and other things of beauty are not appreciated because of their utilitarian advantages, but for what they are by themselves (Heshmat). Thus, a work of art, according to Heshmat’s theory of aesthetics, is a thing in itself, evaluated only by viewer’s perception.
Secondly, the aesthetic value of an artwork is influenced by viewer’s interpretation. This is because the roots of aesthetic preference are found in a larger cultural setting (Heshmat). For example, on the most basic level, one person might enjoy listening to Tchaikovsky, while another might prefer AC/DC instead. Moreover, the appreciation of what is aesthetically pleasing is affected by social conformity, or what is considered to be beautiful by the majority (Heshmat). Thus, personal preferences and social norms are major factors in aesthetic pleasure.
Thirdly, art has a tendency to simplify the ideas that it conveys. This is happening because people prefers things that are easier to think and talk about (Heshmat). For instance, a potent sensation of aesthetic pleasure is produced when a difficult idea is conveyed in a way that is understandable. That is due to the fact that novel stimuli are not processed as quickly as familiar stimuli (Heshmat). Thus, the more knowledge a person has of the work of art, the more satisfaction they can derive from it.
Moreover, the atmosphere and ambiance surrounding the work of art can influence the perception of it. People value the way that diverse factors interact to shape the aesthetic experience (Heshmat). For example, the interior design of a museum contributes to the aesthetic pleasure from viewing the painting displayed there. Human interactions also play a role in determining the ambiance or atmosphere (Heshmat). The interpersonal skills of the people presenting a work of art affect the ability to appreciate it. A person in a welcoming and comfortable atmosphere can relax and focus on the pleasure that an artwork provides. Thus, the surrounding factors of an artwork play a major role in the aesthetic pleasure that a person receives from it.
Knowing the basic principle of Heshmat’s aesthetic experience theory, this paper will now move on to describe how these principles apply to the modern digital era. As per Heshmat’s, second element of aesthetic experience, the pleasure that a viewer derives from an artwork is largely influenced by social norms. Thus, a study was conducted to determine how people decide what music they should listen to. It has been found that the majority of the focus group has made music choices based on the ratings on streaming services, as well as the “like-dislike” ratios of artists (Hanrahan 7). The study has discovered that due to the emergence of social media and music streaming services, consumers are more anxious about their choice of music because of fear of judgment (Hanrahan 7). Moreover, the interviewees, have shown a distinct hostility to critics, as some of them have noted that they deliberately do not read comments under the music that they are planning to listen to (Hanrahan 7). Thus, the factor of social norms defining what is beautiful or not, as well as peer pressure, is arguably more prevalent in the modern digital world.
Moreover, despite the connexionist nature of modern technology, music taste has become a deeply personal matter. As the abovementioned study has found out, due to the opinionated nature of rating and comments under works of art, the interviewees have felt that “everyone confronts them at every turn” (Hanrahan 8). Due to the fear of missing out on recent trends and being judged on their musical taste, the focus group members have described feeling anxious and vulnerable while talking about musical preferences (Hanrahan 8). That is largely attributed to the fact that the judgment of artworks in the Internet takes a more quantitative form, for example “Top-10 Lists”, that takes priority over discursive judgment (Hanrahan 8). Furthermore, due to the pressure that these factors create, discursive judgment can be harder to find, as people are less inclined to enter a debate on the artistic value of music due to the fear of criticism from others (Hanrahan 8). Thus, while it has become easier to find and talk about music, the ability to make an independent judgment on its aesthetic value has reduced and changed to more quantitative means.
Moreover, with the emergence of digital art, more methods of experiencing aesthetic pleasure have been created. The most recent advancement in that field is interactivity, meaning that a person can “enter” a work of art and change it (Giomi 6). Interactivity is a subject’s ability to engage with the computer system in a feedback loop, altering the representational world in which it resides and accessing a processual aspect of the aesthetic experience (Giomi 6). This essentially turns a work of art from an object to a process, making the experience of appreciating an artwork a lived action (Giomi 7). Thus, interactive works of art change the way people perceive art and the way they receive aesthetic pleasure, making it a lifelike process or action.
Furthermore, the modern ways of viewing artwork move away from the need to be near them physically. The various proponents of interactive media make changes to Heshmat’s aesthetic feature of ambiance and the surrounding of an artwork, stating that the factor of presence in front of an artwork is different with interactive media. They criticize the essentialist concept of presence since, for them, it is solely relevant to performance and should be replaced by the mediological concept of liveness (Giomi 11). They contend that because information and communication technologies are so prevalent, media environments comply with the desire for liveness not just live performance (Giomi 11). Thus, physical presence near a work of art is no longer required to derive aesthetic pleasure from it, with new mediums allowing a different way of aesthetic experience.
However, the position of this paper has some significant arguments against it. Firstly, the study by Nancy Hanrahan that describes the changes in perception of music is based on interviews and states that “it is nearly impossible to generalize about experience, much less aesthetic experience” (12). Furthermore, the author states that while she has uncovered some nuances in the modern perception of music, she does not state that her findings are universal (Hanrahan 12). Secondly, the studies covered in Andrea Giomi’s article, are based on new technologies, that are yet to be studied thoroughly by a large number of scholars, and thus the statements mentioned above are not concrete yet (Giomi). Thus, while this paper sheds light on some nuances of contemporary aesthetic experience, more studies are required for a serious discourse on aesthetics on these subjects.
Thus, aesthetic experience and the means and ways of deriving pleasure from artworks have significantly changed in recent years. While Heshmat’s view on aesthetic experience is still relevant in most cases, some spheres have made significant changes to it. In terms of music, the notion of social norms and peer pressure has become more crucial with the emergence of music streaming services, with people viewing musical taste as a deeply personal matter. Moreover, interactive works of art have significantly changed the way of receiving aesthetic pleasure, turning artworks from an object into an action and removing the need to be physically near a work of art to appreciate it. To summarize, while the studies have drawn attention to the changes in aesthetic experience, further research is needed before there can be a real discussion about aesthetics on these themes.
Works Cited
Heshmat, Shahram. “The 5 Key Elements of Aesthetic Experience.” Psychology Today, Web.
Hanrahan, Nancy. “Hearing the Contradictions: Aesthetic Experience, Music and Digitization.” Cultural Sociology, vol. 12, no. 3, 2018, pp. 289-302, Web.
Giomi, Andrea. “Towards an ontology of digital arts. Media environments, interactive processes and effects of presence.” Rivista di estetica, vol. 73, 2020, pp. 47-65, Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.