Two Ambiguities in Object-Oriented Aesthetic Interpretation

The aesthetic theory of Graham Harman’s Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) revolves around the concept of allure, a nonliteral experience of an object’s displacement from its qualities that draws attention to a deeper reality. But applying allure to aesthetic interpretation is hampered in two ways. Firs...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Taxier Eric
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: De Gruyter 2020-10-01
Series:Open Philosophy
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2020-0139
id doaj-9e11f04a4fb34def99d14acc4e8f0358
record_format Article
spelling doaj-9e11f04a4fb34def99d14acc4e8f03582021-09-22T06:13:18ZengDe GruyterOpen Philosophy2543-88752020-10-013159961010.1515/opphil-2020-0139opphil-2020-0139Two Ambiguities in Object-Oriented Aesthetic InterpretationTaxier Eric0City University of New York, New York, United States of AmericaThe aesthetic theory of Graham Harman’s Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) revolves around the concept of allure, a nonliteral experience of an object’s displacement from its qualities that draws attention to a deeper reality. But applying allure to aesthetic interpretation is hampered in two ways. First, OOO necessarily moves between the constrained viewpoint of experience and a more global perspective. Yet mixing these “inside” and “outside” views can risk ambiguity. Second, the phenomenological difference between the parts and qualities of an object must be clarified before Harman’s model of wholes and parts can be incorporated into OOO aesthetics. Addressing these two ambiguities will make it possible to further develop OOO’s resources for aesthetic commentary. For instance, one conclusion is that allure itself has two varieties: a tension between the object and its qualities (“allusion”) and a tension between the whole and its parts (“collusion”). These options parallel Harman’s twofold critique of reductionism. Another conclusion is that the literal needs an explanation within the framework of OOO insofar as it is a genuine feature of experience.https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2020-0139object-oriented ontologyaestheticsmereologymetaphysicsgraham harman
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Taxier Eric
spellingShingle Taxier Eric
Two Ambiguities in Object-Oriented Aesthetic Interpretation
Open Philosophy
object-oriented ontology
aesthetics
mereology
metaphysics
graham harman
author_facet Taxier Eric
author_sort Taxier Eric
title Two Ambiguities in Object-Oriented Aesthetic Interpretation
title_short Two Ambiguities in Object-Oriented Aesthetic Interpretation
title_full Two Ambiguities in Object-Oriented Aesthetic Interpretation
title_fullStr Two Ambiguities in Object-Oriented Aesthetic Interpretation
title_full_unstemmed Two Ambiguities in Object-Oriented Aesthetic Interpretation
title_sort two ambiguities in object-oriented aesthetic interpretation
publisher De Gruyter
series Open Philosophy
issn 2543-8875
publishDate 2020-10-01
description The aesthetic theory of Graham Harman’s Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) revolves around the concept of allure, a nonliteral experience of an object’s displacement from its qualities that draws attention to a deeper reality. But applying allure to aesthetic interpretation is hampered in two ways. First, OOO necessarily moves between the constrained viewpoint of experience and a more global perspective. Yet mixing these “inside” and “outside” views can risk ambiguity. Second, the phenomenological difference between the parts and qualities of an object must be clarified before Harman’s model of wholes and parts can be incorporated into OOO aesthetics. Addressing these two ambiguities will make it possible to further develop OOO’s resources for aesthetic commentary. For instance, one conclusion is that allure itself has two varieties: a tension between the object and its qualities (“allusion”) and a tension between the whole and its parts (“collusion”). These options parallel Harman’s twofold critique of reductionism. Another conclusion is that the literal needs an explanation within the framework of OOO insofar as it is a genuine feature of experience.
topic object-oriented ontology
aesthetics
mereology
metaphysics
graham harman
url https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2020-0139
work_keys_str_mv AT taxiereric twoambiguitiesinobjectorientedaestheticinterpretation
_version_ 1717371770234732544