What has John Smith got to do with the Aesthetic?
	Marek Volt

	Aesthetic attitude The exhibition does not evoke that special kind of psychological phenomenon, the so-called aesthetic experience. Not because it is lacking anything significant, but rather because the existence of such an experience is extremely doubtful in itself. We could wonder what an aesthetic attitude to John Smith's exhibition would be like. An aesthetic attitude as a non-personal attitude could here mean not seeing it from the point of view of an astronaut. As Juri Gagarin or Neil Armstrong you don't perceive works of art aesthetically when, at an exhibition, you start memorising your own experience as an astronaut. The aesthetic attitude as a non-cognitive point of view would exclude the question of whether the works of art give a true-to-life picture of the universe and capture the essence of provinciality. An aesthetic attitude as a non-practical aspect means experiencing the works for their own sake, without any further aims. This, however, means that we should suppress thoughts as to how much the materials and the making of the rocket cost and who financed the exhibition. Whether anyone is able to perceive the exhibition in the three above-mentioned interpretations of the aesthetic point of view, is a question of mental discipline. Whether perceiving the exhibition from the aesthetic point of view suits the artistic or other aims of the author(s) is quite another matter.
	Aesthetic features Let us ask what kind of aesthetic features we could attribute to the whole or parts of the John Smith exhibition. Relying on the opinions of art critics who reviewed the exhibition is inescapable, but not especially fruitful, because they have only evaluated the success of the project as a project for the biennial. What speaks against the project as being non-aesthetic is the fact that the project has nothing to do with such aesthetic characteristics as taste. Such characteristics (e.g. elegant, tastelessly splendid, picturesque, sublime, beautiful) are connected with taste canons of art critics and viewers of a certain period. The fact that art critics did not attribute any taste qualities to the project does not mean that attributing such qualities would be impossible.
	For a multimedia-soaked art lover, a painting does not exceed the 'threshold of a news item'. This could partly explain the remarks in the exhibition guest book that it was 'boring'. Attributing certain aesthetic qualities is in fact connected with the viewer's direct emotional reception. These are the so-called affectional qualities (qualities of reaction): 'funny', 'touching', 'comic', 'tiresome'. However, a guest book does not have to be reliable. The project contained a supplement about the German researcher John Smith and his notes on Kaido and Marko, two nondescript boys in a small provincial town. The story is simultaneously 'touching', 'comic' and 'funny'. It should be pointed out that the story has affectional qualities even when its legitimacy as part of the project is doubtful. We may differ as to which affectional qualities we attribute to the exhibition, but we presumably agree that the exhibition (or parts of it) can be the bearers of such qualities. The qualities applicable to the exhibition or its parts are the so-called gestalt qualities. Some aesthetics regard qualities such as 'united', 'disorganised', 'balanced', 'harmonious', and 'compact' as paradigmatic examples of aesthetic qualities. The existence of an auditory component annuls the critics' belief that John Smith's undertaking can be adequately classified (evaluated, interpreted) as a painting project. The repeated commands in preparation for the flight into the universe and the final countdown can certainly be characterised in terms of unity or monotony. The curator Anders HŠrm writes that "the somewhat optimistically infantile project is a sort of tragicomic conceptualisation of village madness." It is not certain whether the quality 'somewhat infantile' belongs to the so-called qualities of emotion (e.g. 'grim', 'serious', 'calm', or 'sorrowful'). If an emotional quality is attributed, neither the artist nor the viewer is inevitably the bearer of these qualities. 'Optimistic infantility' can be classified as a behavioural quality where, through metaphoric extension, qualities noted in regard to people's behaviour, 'brave', 'nervous', 'vital', 'hot-tempered', 'intensive', 'powerful', are attributed to art. Art critics preferred to use representational and historical qualities in regard to the exhibition; the latter are treated as aesthetic qualities only in the widest interpretation of the term.
	A justification of non-aestheticism Everyone should decide for himself what kind of aesthetic qualities can be qualified as the 'correct' ones. Aesthetes and art critics have regarded all types of qualities as aesthetic qualities. Presuming that the exhibition aspires (with not too clear a meaning) to be a conceptual undertaking, it is easy to see why the aesthetic is a factor obstructing the conceptual side. The aesthetically pampered art viewer believes that a pleasant experience of art, a legitimate magic spell, should overcome him immediately upon coming face to face with a 'right' work of art. Just like the thousands of John Smiths in the slums of New York or Stuttgart after another dose of drugs. Hence the potentially inhibiting impact of aestheticism on art with features of conceptual challenge. After all, it is an empirical fact that at certain doses (of alcohol, drugs, or 'aesthetic experience') people are not able to meet a conceptual challenge, and cannot share the benefits of such an experience. A drug-induced stupor-style phenomenon signifies the obstruction of the adequate experiencing of art when the primary role in the artist's arsenal of aims belongs to conceptual rather than aesthetic aspirations.
	Coda John Smith's exhibition is not aesthetic if we consider the aesthetic to be a special psychological condition. The exhibition is aesthetic in the sense that it can be the object of an aesthetic attitude. John Smith's exhibition is aesthetic in the sense that qualities can be attributed to it (and many art critics have done so) which are considered sub-types of aesthetic qualities in the classification well-known in aesthetics. John Smith's exhibition is non-aesthetic when we exclude historical and representational qualities from the aesthetic. Artist Smith is not an aggressive pursuer of the aesthetic or a pseudo-intellectual cultivator of thesis or puzzle art.
	| Estonian Art 1/03 (12) | Published by the Estonian Institute 2003 | ISSN 1406-5711 (Online) | ISSN 1406-3549 (Printed version) | einst@einst.ee | tel: (372) 631 43 55 | fax: (372) 631 43 56 |