Monika Jovanović

DOI Number
First page
Last page


Abstract. In this paper I examine whether critical reasons we give for evaluative aesthetic judgments must be generalizable in order to be adequate. In the first part of the paper, I introduce central concepts relevant for the problem of aesthetic evaluation (aesthetic value, evaluative judgments, critical reasons, aesthetic experience), as well as crucial distinctions in contemporary aesthetic and meta-aesthetic debates: aesthetic cognitivism/non-cognitivism and aesthetic particularism/generalism. After I point to some relations between these concepts, in the second part of the paper, using Frank Sibleyʼs view as an example, I examine in more detail what sort of consistency characterizes critical reasons, that is, what sort of consistency distinguishes the rationality of aesthetic evaluation. This paper offers an alternative view of the weak aesthetic generalism that rests on the concept of Griceian conversational implicatures. In the end, I argue for James Shelley’s critical compatibilism, which gives considerable merit to both sides in the debate.

Key words:   consistency, aesthetic value, generality of critical reasons, inherent evaluative polarity, merit-properties, conversational implicatures.

Full Text:



Beardsley, Monroe. “On the Generality of Critical Reasons.” Journal of Philosophy 59 (1962): 477–486.

Bergqvist, Anna. “Why Sibley Is Not a Generalist After All.” British Journal of Aesthetics 50 (2010): 1–14.

Conolly, Oliver & Haydar, Bashshar. “Aesthetic Principles.” British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (2003): 114–125.

Cova, Florian & Pain, Nicolas. “Can Folk Aesthetics Ground Aesthetic Realism?” Monist 95 (2012): 241–263.

Dancy, Jonathan. Ethics without Principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Dickie, George. “Beardsley, Sibley, and Critical Principles.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 46 (1987): 229–237.

Grice, Paul. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3, edited by P. Cole and J. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press, 1975.

Isenberg, Arnold. “Critical Communication.” Philosophical Review 58 (1949): 330–44.

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Kirwin, Claire. “Why Sibley Is (Probably) Not a Particularist After All.” British Journal of Aesthetics, 51 (2011): 201–212.

Little, Margaret. “Moral Generalities Revisited”. In Moral Particularism, edited by Margaret Little and Brad Hooker, 276–304. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Shelley, James. “Critical Compatibilism.” In Knowing Art, edited by Matthew Kieran and Dominic McIver Lopes, 125–136. Dordrecht: Springer, 2004.

Sibley, Frank. “Aesthetic Concepts.” In Frank Sibley, Approach to Aesthetics, edited by John Benson, Betty Redfern & Jeremy Roxbee Cox, 1–23. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001a.

Sibley, Frank. “Aesthetic and Non-aesthetic.” In Frank Sibley, Approach to Aesthetics, edited by John Benson, Betty Redfern & Jeremy Roxbee Cox, 33–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001b.

Sibley, Frank. “General Criteria and Reasons in Aesthetics.” In Frank Sibley, Approach to Aesthetics, edited by John Benson, Betty Redfern & Jeremy Roxbee Cox, 104–118. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001c.

Walton, Kendall. “How Marvelous! Towards the Theory of Aesthetic Value.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 51 (1993): 499–510.

Weitz, Morris. “The Role of Theory in Aesthetics.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 15 (1956): 27–35.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell, 1953.

Zangwill, Nick. “The Beautiful, the Dainty and the Dumpy.” British Journal of Aesthetics 35 (1995): 317–329.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

ISSN 1820-8495 (Print)

ISSN 1820-8509 (Online)