How Aesthetic Perception Influences the Presentation and Expression of Art

Authors

  • Alexander Loh Guan Ming Department of Fine Arts, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.64229/qgggf757

Keywords:

Aesthetic Perception, Artistic Expression, Art Theory, Institutional Critique, Postmodernism, Digital Art, Philosophical Aesthetics

Abstract

Aesthetic perception, the lens through which individuals and cultures interpret and assign value to art, is not a passive receptor but an active, formative force in the artistic process. This paper argues that aesthetic paradigms fundamentally shape the creation, presentation, and reception of art, operating across historical, socio-cultural, and institutional dimensions. Moving beyond the traditional focus on reception, this article examines how the artist's internalized aesthetic framework dictates formal choices, material selection, and conceptual direction. Furthermore, it explores how dominant aesthetic values, often mediated by institutions like museums and galleries, curate public perception and consecrate artistic legitimacy. The analysis begins by establishing the philosophical underpinnings of aesthetic judgment, from Kantian disinterest to Bourdieu's sociological critique. It then traces the evolution of Western aesthetic paradigms-from Renaissance idealism to Modernist abstraction and postmodern pluralism-to demonstrate their causal impact on artistic expression. Subsequently, the paper investigates the socio-cultural construction of taste and its power to include or exclude certain forms of expression. Finally, it addresses the challenges and opportunities presented by digital and globalized aesthetics in the contemporary era. Supported by conceptual diagrams and empirical data, this study concludes that aesthetic perception is a co-author in the artwork itself, a dynamic interface through which art is continually made and remade.

References

[1]Hegel, G. W. F. (1975). Aesthetics: Lectures on fine art (T. M. Knox, Trans., Vol. 1). Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1835). https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780198244981.book.1

[2]Freedberg, D., & Gallese, V. (2007). Motion, emotion and empathy in esthetic experience. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(5), 197-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.02.003

[3]Danto, A. C. (1964). The artworld. The Journal of Philosophy, 61(19), 571-584. https://doi.org/10.2307/2022937

[4]Manovich, L. (2017). Instagram and contemporary image. http://manovich.net/index.php/projects/instagram-and-contemporary-image

[5]Vierkant, A. (2010). The image object post-internet. [Essay]. Retrieved from http://jstchillin.org/artie/pdf/The_Image_Object_Post-Internet_us.pdf

[6]Krauss, R. E. (1979). Sculpture in the expanded field. October, 8, 30-44. https://doi.org/10.2307/778224

[7]Saito, Y. (2007). Everyday aesthetics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278350.001.0001

[8]Chatterjee, A. (2014). The aesthetic brain: How we evolved to desire beauty and enjoy art. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199811809.001.0001

[9]Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489-508. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811

[10]Berry, D. M., & Dieter, M. (Eds.). (2015). Postdigital aesthetics: Art, computation and design. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137437204

[11]Cetinić, E., & She, J. (2022). Understanding and creating art with AI: Review and outlook. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications, 18(2), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3475799

Downloads

Published

2025-11-21

Issue

Section

Articles