BOOK REVIEW
A as Human P ac ice: An Aes he ics
by
Geo g W. Be am
Lydia Moland
Colby College, US
[email protected]
A book e iew o Geo g W. Be am,
A as Human P ac ice: An Aes he ics.
T ansla ed by Na han Ross. London: Bloomsbu y Academic, 2019, x + 240 pp.
ISBN 978-1-3500-6314-3.
Geo g Be am’s A as Human P ac ice: An Aes he ics is a comp ehensi e, ambi ious, pa a-
digm-shi ing a icula ion o an o iginal aes he ic heo y.1 In i s ocus on aes he ic expe ience
as embedded in and enhancing human p ac ices, i add esses his o ically ho ny ques ions,
sugges s new a enues o in e p e a ion, and o e s a heo y wi h enough s uc u e and lex-
ibili y o make a subs an ial new con ibu ion o he ield o aes he ics. Be am seeks o
eo ien ou desc ip ion o aes he ics, a guing ha we unde s and a bes as i sel a p ac-
ice ha challenges and enla ges o he p ac ices. In so doing, a enables us o unde s and
no hing less han wha i means o be human and o do no hing less han con inue o ca y
o wa d he p ojec o being human.
Wha is happening o us when we ha e an aes he ic expe ience? A e we being aken ou o
ou no mal p ac ices, wi h ou usual a i ude o and knowledge o he wo ld dis up ed? A e
we disin e es ed in a way ha con as s o ou in e ac ions wi h he wo ld o he wise? Se e al
his o ical and con empo a y heo is s o a , including A hu Dan o and Ch is oph Menke,
ha e desc ibed i his way. In he book’s i s chap e , Be am gi es a sus ained c i ique o
his iewpoin , which he calls ‘ he au onomy pa adigm’ o a . His conclusion, ul ima ely, is
ha au onomy heo ies a e oo objec -o ien ed and so a e unable o explain he way hese
objec s a e embedded in ou p ac ices (p. 43). They ‘ ake human p ac ice as a p ac ice ha
is subjec o de e minacy in a one-sided way’ by hinking o ‘human p ac ice as essen ially
de e mina e’. Be am ins ead unde s ands human p ac ice as ‘simul aneously de e mina e
and inde e mina e’, claiming ha his syn hesis ‘has o be he basis o any explana ion o
a ’ (p. 52).
Be am hen mo es, in Chap e 2, o gi e wonde ully clea summa ies o wo o he lead-
ing a heo is s o he Ge man nine een h cen u y, Immanuel Kan and Geo g Wilhelm
F ied ich Hegel, in an a emp o ‘ ind a concep o a ha is no o e simpli ied’ (p. 56). His
book will be o g ea help o hose wan ing a gene al unde s anding o bo h hese philoso-
phe s, whose wo k is bo h no o iously di icul and eno mously in luen ial. Bu Be am’s
1
I appea ed o iginally as Kuns als menschliche P axis: Eine Äs he ik (Be lin: Suh kamp, 2014).
Moland, Lydia. ‘
A as Human P ac ice: An Aes he ics
by Geo g W. Be am.’
Es e ika: The Eu opean Jou nal
o Aes he ics
LVIII/XIV, no. 2 (2021): pp.179–183. DOI:
h ps://doi.o g/10.33134/eeja.274
ESTETIKA
THE EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS
Re iew180
wo k is no p ima ily a his o ical exegesis: he uses his unde s anding o Kan and Hegel o
launch a be e unde s anding o human p ac ice.2
Be am’s accoun ocuses on unde s anding he way aes he ic expe ience esembles
o he p ac ices ha su ound ac i i ies such as ea ing, playing, o socializing. Essen ial o his
unde s anding o p ac ice is i s dialec ical emb ace o adi ion and challenge o adi ion.
So, while ‘[a] human p ac ice is one ha is essen ially bound o adi ion’, i is also ue ha
‘human li e is inde e mina e om he g ound up’. This inde e minacy, impo an ly, cha ac-
e izes humans jus as much as i does ou p ac ices: ‘The human being does no ha e a li e
o m ha is a anged “by na u e” o be a ce ain way,’ Be am w i es. ‘Wha cha ac e izes
his o m o li e is ha we always ha e o de e mine ou p ac ices anew’ (p. 50). When he
challenge o ou own being becomes clea o us, we a e p omp ed o look o ools wi h
which o mee i .
This discussion o p ac ices allows Be am o make sense o hei inhe en openness: ha
hey a e ‘no de e minable in a inal way’ bu always ‘ ela e o an open u u e’ (p. 51). This
means ha p ac ices a e ‘cons i u ed by adi ion o be open o e ision and c i icism. This is
wha makes up he human o m o li e’ (p. 52). This openness o e ision means ha ‘ he e is
a p eca ious p ac ical elemen o human exis ence […]. Humans a e beings ha , in es ablish-
ing wha hey a e, always pu hemsel es in play.’ In unde s anding his, we ‘gain an insigh
in o he undamen ally p eca ious na u e o human exis ence’ (p. 87). This, as Be am poin s
ou , means ha ou e lec ion on ou sel es is p ac ical: i ‘en ails change’ (p. 87).
Change, in Be am’s iew, equi es nego ia ion, and one o he ools humans ha e o pe -
o m his nego ia ion is a . He e a e a ew ways Be am cha ac e izes his p ocess: ‘in a ,
a ious human p ac ices come o be nego ia ed in a p ac ical way’ (p. 100); ‘a wo ks a e
objec s ha a e cons i u ed in such a way ha hey ini ia e speci ic p ac ices. By means o
hese p ac ices, o he di e en p ac ices ge enego ia ed’ (p. 101). Pu mos di ec ly: ‘A has
o be unde s ood as a p ocess o nego ia ion’ (p. 114).
Th ough hese conside a ions, Be am a i es a wo heses: ‘ i s , ha a wo ks and
aes he ic e en s e oke in e p e i e ac i i ies ha pu sue and a icula e he cons ella ions
in ol ed in hem […]. Second, hese ac i i ies ha e he po en ial o p o oke a enego ia ion
o o he p ac ices on he basis o hei speci ic imagina i e po en ial’ (p. 149). The e is a lo
o unpack he e, and Be am does his h ough he help o dense bu succinc pa ag aphs in
which he de ines his e ms. Some o hese a e wo h quo ing a leng h, including some o
he o iginal Ge man, o see how he in e locking pa s o Be am’s heo y eme ge. He e, o
ins ance, a e his speci ici y and alue heses:
Speci ici y Thesis: A wo ks e oke a ious ac i i ies in ecipien s on he basis o hei
sel - ela ed cons i u ion, ac i i ies by means o which hese ecipien s a icula e he
challenges inhe en in he a wo k’s cons ella ion o elemen s [mi els de en sie die
he aus o de nden Kon igu a ionen on Elemen en diese Kuns we ke a ikulie en]
Value Thesis: The cons ella ion o elemen s in an a wo k issues challenges by he way
hey p o oke o he ac i i ies in he wo ld [He aus o de nd sind Kon igu a ionen on
Elemen en in Kuns we ken dadu ch, dass sie eine Neubes immung ande e Ak i i ä en in
2
I would, howe e , egis e a disag eemen wi h one o Be am’s in e p e i e claims abou Hegel, namely his
desc ip ion o Hegel’s accoun o a ’s decline: Hegel does no , on my in e p e a ion, belie e ha a is pe ma-
nen ly declining, bu a he desc ibes he special challenges mode n a aces gi en he ac ha i can no longe
c ea e eligion, say, bu only depic i . Hegel, on my eading, hinks a has eno mous po en ial in he mode n
wo ld. Thus, I do no belie e ha Hegel’s explo a ion o he ene ge ic de elopmen o new a s is ‘[c]on a y o
his own es ima ion’ (p. 199).
Re iew 181
de Wel ans oßen]. In dealing wi h a , we manage o ede ine o he ac i i ies in he
amewo k o human p ac ices, al hough his ede ini ion can also esul in con i m-
ing al eady es ablished ac i i ies. (p. 150)
Pu ano he way: ‘ he p ope ies o aes he ic alue ha we ind embodied in a wo ks belong
o he s uc u e o he wo ld in ha hey p o oke he enego ia ion o human p ac ices. They
belong o he s uc u e o he wo ld in ha hey challenge he way we deal wi h he wo ld’ (Die
äs he ischen We eigenscha en on Kuns we ken gehö en dadu ch zum Ge üge de Wel , dass
sie Neuaushandlungen menschliche P ak iken ans oßen. Sie gehö en dadu ch zum Ge üge de
Wel , dass sie die Auseinande se zung mi de Wel he aus o de n) (p. 150; Ge man a p. 144).
As demons a ed in hese quo a ions, Be am’s heo y makes equen use o wo ds such as
p o oke (ans oßen) o challenge (Auseinande se zung o he aus o de n). A one poin he says
ha ‘[a] wo ks s uggle o de elop challenges’ (Kuns we ke ingen da um, He aus o de ungen
zu en wickeln) (p. 197; Ge man a p. 185). He also speaks o a wo ks compe ing wi h each
o he (Kuns we ke we ei e n mi einande ) and o he ‘agonal’ s uggle o meaning hey ep-
esen (p. 197; Ge man a p. 185). This ocabula y cons ella ion, whose o ce is powe ully
e oked by Be am’s ansla o , Na han Ross, keeps he exis en ial na u e o Be am’s unde -
lying claims always in he eade ’s mind. A , his language makes clea , is no hing less han
pa o humans’ s uggle o unde s and and c ea e hemsel es: an example o he cons an
a emp s o o ge meaning and escape a ophy ha cha ac e ize ou li es oge he .
This unde s anding o aes he ic expe ience as challenging ou p ac ices can, Be am
claims, be ex ended beyond he a wo ld. Su eying a dese landscape, o ins ance, he sug-
ges s, ‘issues a di e en kind o p o oca ion’ by o e ing ‘a se ies o connec ions in which
di e en elemen s in e ac in a complex manne ’ (p. 153). When we iew a landscape in his
way, ‘we disco e he na u al landscape as an objec ha has he po en ial o guide in e p e-
i e ac i i ies’. The landscape can become an objec ‘o an unlimi ed p ocess o explo a ion’,
p o oking us ou o ou habi ual in e ac ions wi h ou en i onmen while s ill s aying deeply
embedded in ou o he p ac ices (p. 154).
Be am gi es a ich a gumen o unde s anding a wo ks as wo king in and c ea ing con-
s ella ions, bo h in e nally – by e e ing o hei own cons i uen pa s in ela ional ways
– and ex e nally – by e e ing o o he a wo ks o aes he ic gen es. The claim ha a wo ks
exis in hese kinds o cons ella ions, always issuing new challenges, accoun s o how new
gen es can a ise and olde gen es can g ow s ale o a ophy. Be am uses he example o
ilm’s e olu ion om silen o sound and hen o including o he media like anima ion, o
ins ance, o a gue ha ‘[a] is ic gen es a e always caugh in a s a e o dissolu ion. They a e
always abou o ans o m in o new gen es.’ This, oo, can be unde s ood h ough imagining
cons ella ions ha e ol e wi hin a gen e bu also s e ch i beyond i sel : ‘Es ablished gen es,’
he w i es, ‘a e cons an ly econ igu ed by gene ic cons ella ions ha ha e no ye been es ab-
lished in hem (like he way ilm changes h ough he addi ional elemen o sound space)’
(p. 213). Film’s e olu ion is dependen on he ‘de elopmen ha he gene ic cons ella ions
unde go in a wo ks’ (p. 214).
This emphasis on in e p e i e and no ma i e p ac ices deli e s, by Be am’s accoun , an
objec i e as opposed o a subjec i e accoun o aes he ics. Aes he ic judgemen s ‘a e o ien ed
owa d he ques ion o whe he a wo ks p o oke an adequa e de ini ion o human p ac ices.
This is hei objec i e basis’ (p. 215). This means ha ‘cons ella ions o an a wo k elease
g ea i i a ions, open up su p ising pe spec i es, ha hey p esen a g and s uc u e, ich in
ension, ha ecipien s a e p o oked, ha hey a e able o a icula e hei eelings in dealing
wi h he cons ella ions, and many o he hings.’ The alue o a wo ks, hen, comes when
‘ hey challenge ecipien s – which can also esul in he con i ma ion o how hey unde s and
Re iew182
hemsel es’ (pp. 196–97). In o he wo ds, as well as being hemsel es a p ac ice, a wo ks
help us hink h ough ou p ac ices: hey ‘b ing g ea e de ini ion o ou p ac ices in a ious
ways h ough hei challenging aspec ’ (p. 201). And, o epea , in engaging in all o his p o-
oking, challenging, and compe ing, a helps us deal wi h he exis en ial ques ions aised by
he openness o ou own na u es, o , as Be am pu s i , ‘Wha we e alua e a e p o oca ions
o human p ac ice – p o oca ions ha I ha e summa ized by saying ha a deals wi h de in-
ing wha i is o be human’ (p. 216).
This de ini ion o a also sheds ligh on wha we a e doing when we in e p e an a -
wo k: Be am claims ha ‘[a] ’s p ocess o nego ia ion eme ges om a dynamic connec ion
be ween a wo ks and hose in e p e i e ac i i ies ha challenge o h de ini ions o human
p ac ice’. He adds ha ‘ hese challenges do no ake place in a s aigh o wa d way, bu a e
ins ead bound up wi h a complex p ocess o judgmen in which we conside a wo ks as
aluable o c i icize hem as ailing based on hei own claims’. In his way, ou judgemen s
become no ma i e as well as in e p e i e: ‘I is only h ough hese no ma i e and e alua i e
p ac ices ha we can explain he in e subjec i e cha ac e o he aes he ic p ocess o nego-
ia ion in an adequa e way’ (pp. 215–16). He e Be am emphasizes he connec ion o hese
e alua ions o humans’ eedom: ‘In hei capaci y o c i ically disce n and e alua e, hese
ac i i ies o judgmen con ibu e in an essen ial way o how we nego ia e he de ini ion o
human p ac ice as a p ocess o sel -de e mina ion’ (p. 217). This, b oadly speaking, is why a
will always be mode n: i is always being eassessed h ough new p ac ices and pushing he
p ac ices hemsel es o e-e alua e, expand, o con ac (p. 203).
A g ea i ue in Be am’s a en ion o p ac ice, in my opinion, is he esul ing a en ion
o ways in which ou aes he ic expe ience is embodied. Be am eminds us ha mo ing o
music is no he only way in which we espond physically o a . We walk h ough a chi ec-
u al spaces and a ound sculp u es; we ha e o ‘p ac ice o ms o hea ing’ o deal wi h bo h
a chi ec u e and music; we combine bo h ac ile and isual pe spec i es when expe ienc-
ing sculp u e. We a e o en emo ionally challenged, especially by na a i e a , expe iencing
empa hy, ou age, conce n, o ea . ‘We ha e o g asp such emo ional eac ions as ac i i ies
inhe en o he ecep ion o he wo k,’ Be am w i es, ‘and hey hus demons a e a speci ic
o m o in e p e a ion o a wo ks’ (p. 133). This a en ion wa ns us no o p i ilege ex ual
in e p e a ion: ‘ o a icula e in language he cons ella ions wi hin he a wo k is some hing
ha we should unde s and as only one in e p e i e ac i i y among o he s’ (p. 134).
Wha , hen, a e we doing when we judge a wo ks? We a e, Be am hinks, e alua ing ‘ he
po en ial o a wo ks o p o oke a enego ia ion o he de ini ions o p ac ices’ (p. 221). I
comes as no su p ise ha philosophy, as a human p ac ice ha explici ly e lec s on human
p ac ice, plays a ole in ou aes he ic judgemen s, oo. ‘A philosophical o heo e ical a i ude
owa d a is pa o a ’s p ac ice,’ Be am w i es – o , pu ano he way, ‘i belongs o he
compe i ion o a wo ks o aes he ic success o a icula e his compe i ion’. Such compe i-
ion is i sel philosophical, a kind o ‘ e lec ion on e lec ion’ ha can make a ’s ole in ou
p ac ices, and hus i s alue, e iden (p. 226).
A ’s con ibu ion o eedom, Be am concludes, is unique. ‘A wo ks accomplish a con-
ibu ion o eedom because o how hey challenge human p ac ices,’ he w i es. ‘The ee-
dom ha is ealized in a demons a es his peculia i y: I is no he kind o eedom ha
is in ol ed in a c i ical e lec ion by means o concep s. Ra he , his ealiza ion o eedom
is bound o objec s ha guide he sel -de e mina ion o p ac ices’ (p. 231). In a challenge o
much adi ional heo izing abou a , Be am claims ha a objec s need no be sensible
o ma e ial. This opens up mo e p oduc i e analyses o li e a u e and concep ual a , which,
all oo o en, a e inco po a ed in o sense-based heo ies o a in only he mos awkwa d o
ways (p. 125).
Re iew 183
In he end, Be am concludes, we need a o ‘issue necessa y challenges’ (p. 234). We need
s ill li es o show us ensions in social ela ions (p. 210), poe y o challenge ou unde s and-
ing o ou own language, dance o show us wha no ms we unknowingly inhabi ega ding
how he body can and should wo k. A challenges us o in e p e he wo ld; in in e p e ing
i , we engage in a aluable p ac ice o e alua ing ou p ac ices, showing in u n how a wo ks
a e o alue. This also cla i ies how we e alua e a wo ks agains each o he : a wo ks ha
success ully challenge us o engage in hese e alua ions a e hemsel es mos aluable.
Gi en he ichness o Be am’s accoun , he eade is le wonde ing how i could be
applied o answe o he ques ions. How does his unde s anding o aes he ic expe ience map
on o o he his o ical o cul u al unde s andings o a ? Inso a as a is o en ma e ial o sen-
sual, wha can his heo y each us abou ou e ol ing unde s anding o he way we see o
hea , and how ou p ac ices a ound hese senses a e also up o nego ia ion? As o he book’s
o ma , I ound mysel eg e ing he lack o an index, which would ha e allowed eade s o
ace how Be am’s complex in e locking pa s cohe e ac oss his w i ing.
Be am’s heo y consis s o dialec ically in e locking pieces ha gi e an o ganically in e -
wo en sense o a ’s impo ance and, mos cen ally, i s exis en ial ole in human li e. I gi es
us a con ex h ough which o compa e o he seminal hinke s in he aes he ic adi ion such
as Nelson Goodman, John McDowell, and Noël Ca oll. Al hough i s schola ly c eden ials a e
impeccable, his book is no a d y wo k o academic schola ship: i p esen s a genuinely exci -
ing and ene gizing heo y ha makes one immedia ely wan o apply i o a wo ks. I hus
makes possible he e y compe i i e, p o oca i e ene gy o e lec ion and sel -de e mina ion
ha i s heo y desc ibes. Be am’s aes he ic heo y should ake i s place among o he s as a
comp ehensi e heo y o aes he ics. Jus as impo an ly, i is p imed o make ou e e yday
expe ience o aes he ics iche . In showing how a pa icipa es in and helps ou human p ac-
ices e ol e, Be am’s heo y e eals a o be an essen ial pa o exis ing and h i ing in ou
e y challenging wo ld.
Compe ing In e es s
The au ho has no compe ing in e es s o decla e.
How o ci e his a icle: Moland, Lydia. ‘
A as Human P ac ice: An Aes he ics
by Geo g W. Be am.’
Es e ika: The Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics
LVIII/XIV, no. 2 (2021): pp. 179–183. DOI: h ps://doi.
o g/10.33134/eeja.274
Published: 16 Sep embe 2021
Copy igh : © 2021 The Au ho (s). This is an open-access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he
C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License (CC-BY 4.0), which pe mi s un es ic ed use,
dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal au ho and sou ce a e c edi ed.
See h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/.
Es e ika: The Eu opean Jou nal o Aes he ics
is a pee - e iewed
open access jou nal published by Helsinki Uni e si y P ess in
coope a ion wi h he Facul y o A s, Cha les Uni e si y in
P ague.
OPEN ACCESS