Helmut Leder

The article examines an experimental survey that was conducted by Wassily Kandinsky and his students of the wall painting workshop at the Bauhaus Weimar in 1923. In his theoretical writings on art, Kandinsky had assumed there to be direct correspondences between basic colors (yellow, red, blue) and forms (triangle, square, circle), and he operationalized this assumption in the survey. The recent discovery of twenty-six completed questionnaires offers new insights into the scope of Kandinsky’s doctrine of color-form correspondence, and forces us to reevaluate his position regarding scientific research. Against the background of perceptual sensitization as a Bauhaus teaching method, and through a qualitative analysis of the answers that participants gave in the survey, we show that Kandinsky’s empirical investigation of color-form correspondences was an analytical tool in his attempt to foster an artistic sensibility as regards the aesthetic effects of basic artistic means.

In the history of its reception, the myth of Medea has always been of prime importance for reflections on an awareness of civilization crisis. This process culminates in the modern age, and especially so with Pier Paolo Pasolini’s exceptionally significant version of the Medea story. Pasolini’s far-seeing and complex poetics of cinema combines the ancient myth with sources drawn from the history of religions and thereby exposes the concept of social naturalness as ideologically posited. Against an ideology of the allegedly natural, his „Medea“ brings to bear an ethnoaesthetic mythography, which casts doubt on the postulate of the progress of civilization. To be sure, in the context of modernism, a rehabilitation of religious myth is impossible except in a mode of aesthetic illusion. But it is the fiction of ›mythopoiesis‹ which assures that such an enterprise can make sense, if only in an imaginary way.

This paper challenges the assumption that lines, colors, and shapes have aesthetic effects that are the same for everyone. From an interdisciplinary perspective of art history and empirical aesthetics, we argue that assigning aesthetic effects to specific lines or colors may well be a valid theory for some aesthetic encounters, it falls short of explaining universal aesthetic effects. Our analysis proceeds in four steps: We begin by reconsidering the notion of aesthetic effect as defined in the tradition of Goethe. We then demonstrate that doubts regarding the universality of aesthetic effects have existed since the nineteenth century and that the concept of aesthetic sensitivity was introduced around 1900 to account for individual differences. We point to the persistence of the idea of universality and, related to this, sensitivity by considering the Visual Aesthetic Sensitivity Test, first developed in the 1960s by Karl Otto Götz, Daniel Berlyne, and Hans-Jürgen Eysenck. We discuss new empirical research testing interpersonal agreement about aesthetic effects. The findings of these studies indicate a low agreement among the participants about aesthetic effects, raising serious doubts about assumed universality. In a concluding section, we discuss what remains of the universality claim and propose a weak theory of intersubjective agreement about aesthetic effects.

Von »Die Kunst der Entzweiung« (1987) bis »Spiele der Sprache« (2023): Martin Seels Texte mischen die Karten von theoretischer, praktischer und ästhetischer Reflexion neu und schlagen Brücken zwischen scheinbar unversöhnlichen philosophi [...]