Customer Reviews

The Ideology of the Aesthetic

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

As an undergraduate, I found this book to be absolutely superb. First, it is a difficult read and it requires a close reading in order to fully understand the scope of Eagleton's theories on the aesthetic and its political foundations. Also, I recommend that one be familiar with the texts that Eagleton refers to in this historical analysis. In other words, I would first recommend a knowledge or basic understanding of Burke, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Heidegger, and Walter Benjamin.

The Ideology of the Aesthetic does not concern itself purely with the relationship between art and life, but begins with the nature of particulars and universals in knowledge. Next, using a historical analysis of the texts, Eagleton is able to flush out why the aesthetic became necessary within liberal societies during the 19th century. It asks why the aesthetic became so necessary as a tool for power and resistance. While there are Critical School/Marxist leanings, the book is, nonetheless, a fantastic read. In general, Eagleton is a particularly insightful scholar and I highly recommend his other works.

Particularly, this work was a fantastic guide for me in my research on the rise of the idea of the "aesthetic" state in the early 20th century.

This is an excellent book that has helped me to answer questions about representation, ideology, and hegemony embedded in classically "non-representational" art forms such as music. Eagleton's writing style, as with other of his books that I have read, makes it easy to comprehend and internalize some of the thicker ideas of modern critical theory. As an academigeek I found that I couldn't put it down.

I have given this book only four stars, though, because of its conscious lack of attention to any category of oppression other than class. While I acknowledge that Eagleton states in the introduction that his focus on class is a means of re-introducing class to the area of critical theory that has more recently been dominated (and dismissed) by an emphasis on race and gender studies, this conscious omission is characteristic of some of the main concerns of contemporary studies in race and gender. Eagleton would not lose the edge of his finely tuned Marxist critical approach by acknowledging the intersections of class, race, and gender in his analysis; and he would find, in my opinion, that it enhances his argument regarding the prevalence and dissemination of ideology through aesthetic practice.

But despite my fundamental criticism of Eagleton's unidimensional approach, I consider this book to be one of the more important works I have found in helping to develop my approach to aesthetic criticism.

i read through this whole book. i am sympathetic to eagleton's programme. he humanizes marxism and is quite sympathetic to religious thought yet remaining outside of it himself. but i have a few problems with this text. firstly, he misreads Kant's notion of the "universal subject." in doing so he relegates kantian ethics to something to the effect of "subaltern subservience of the prussian subject." (i am paraphrasing here). but you get my point i think. he attempts to makes some definite stretches and, quite honestly, nearly reverts to strawman tactics in attacking his own misreading of idealist philosophy. this is ironic in that he is attacking his own "idea" of what idealism is...

he isn't just patronizing to religion. he even goes far and says "we've outgrown metaphysics." well, metaphysics is outmoded in the judgement of our time, sure. but "metaphysics" (who knows what all falls under this umbrella (aside from the philosophically discourse itself) is anything but "disproven" so much as "abandoned."

but mostly what bugs me about Eagleton is his prosody and style. his sentences and humor is numpty-ish and cloying. for example, his writing will be something to the effect of "...and it has no more ontological specificity than a bowl of beef stew..." or "... the notion of a bourgeois subject's ideological relationship to the objective world is no less valid than a ham sandwich at a cricket match." you get my point? its a good history, in general. say if you are an english major and want an overview of philosophy and literature's interactions through the modern era (including the present). but i think most serious philocophers would have little trouble finding holes in the prescriptive points that he includes in this, not to mention the whole fact that "aesthetics" itself, roughly meaning perception etc., is definitely not the same as "ideology" which is generally linguistic and worldview oriented. so to say "ideology of" is less intelligable than saying "aesthetics of ideology." ok terry?