Technology changes everything. In the past few years, I have used this space to praise an anthology, or course-pack, I had put together for my Philosophy of Art course, and to try to explain why I teach my course as I do. But I have decided not to use the course-pack again this year. Why not? Well, it was difficult to get the material together, and see it through the clearing of all those copyrights-but that alone would not have stopped me. It was also expensive. But the real problem was that I discovered that many of the sources I wanted to use are available on-line. This meant I was forcing my students to pay for what they could get free. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say they were paying twice. At Baylor University, where I teach, every student is required to pay a computer fee. So I decided to use two texts by a scholar I respect very much, Noel Carroll, and to revise my syllabus-check out the updated 2005 syllabus!!-and provide links to all those useful sources that I could find on-line {I should warn the reader-if any-that the links in the new syllabus work here at Baylor, because our library system has subscribed to those databases. They may not work elsewhere. But I have tried, in each case, to indicate which database was used}. Before going on to use the new syllabus, students might benefit from reading my paper on "Philosophy and the New Technology: a Beginner's Guide." Now perhaps we can go on to discuss how I came to teach this course in the way that I do. I hope the reader (if any) will pardon my putting this explanation in such personal terms. My point is not that my case is special (certainly not superior!), but that it is, I suspect, rather typical. My hope, then, is really two fold. On the one hand, I want my students to understand the purpose of this course, and my new syllabus . I also hope that other teachers, in situations similar to mine, will find my work a useful tool in the pursuit of our common goals. And I hope all this is not too confusing.

So permit me to be personal. I came to Baylor University in Waco, Texas, from the University of Cincinnati many years ago, in 1962. My major professor there, who first introduced me to the subject called aesthetics, or the philosophy of art, was Van Meter Ames. I took courses there, in other areas, with two other scholars who also worked in the philosophy of art, Campbell Crockett and Joseph Margolis. The Baylor Philosophy Department, at the time chaired by W. J. Kilgore, wanted someone to teach a course in aesthetics. Actually, the department was able to hire an additional teacher (me, as it turned out) because Dr. J.B. Smith, chairman of the Baylor Art Department, wanted such a course and promised to require it of all art majors.

From the beginning, I was determined that my philosophy of art course would be just that-- a philosophy course, and not a course in art appreciation or art history. This is not to say that such courses are unimportant. Indeed, while it is true (sadly) that many artists and art lovers have no interest in the philosophy of art, it is difficult to imagine the reverse being true. That is, if a person has no knowledge of, interest in, or feeling for, the arts, that person is not likely to be much interested in the questions asked by philosophers of art. So why don't I try to teach, in my courses, the history of art, and art appreciation? I might add, in passing, that my Baylor course is still doublelisted in Philosophy and Art, but it is now optional for art majors because a later chairman of that department thought I should be teaching art (projecting dozens of slides each class period, etc.). Again, I offer two answers. First, I don't feel qualified to teach such courses. But suppose this is simply false modesty on my part. Suppose that, in fact, I could do a really superb job of teaching such courses. Why, even if that were true, should I duplicate what other departments are doing? We already have courses in art appreciation (and music appreciation, theatre or drama appreciation, literature in several languages, etc., etc.). There is no reason for me to add to the list.

So how should I teach my course? The plain truth is that most of us try to do what our teachers did. Professor Ames had used an early edition (the second) of Rader's Modern Book of Esthetics, so I used that. I found a good coverage of the older material, but the 1960s and 70s produced some exciting material, too. Besides, as a young teacher, I had a lot to learn (I still do). So I changed, for a while, to another anthology which had other things (but none more recent, obviously), Vivas and Krieger's The Problems of Aesthetics, published in 1953. Results were mixed. I wanted to add new materials. Later editions of Rader (Rader died in 1981) added some--and his book remains a good anthology, but not enough. In 1963, my former teacher Joseph Margolis did an anthology, Philosophy Looks at the Arts, so I added that and also used the second and third editions when they were published. The latest is the third edition of 1987. But I was not entirely satisfied. So somewhere in the late 1960s or early 70s, I sat down and worked out the number of class sessions I had per term. Then I listed the topics and/or essays I wanted to talk about, whether they were to be found in the anthologies I used or not. I also added suggested readings and a general bibliography and produced the largest class syllabus on the Baylor campus (reproduced now online as part of my Assistance for Aesthetics page). The syllabus has been updated and changed many times over the past 35 or so years, and, of course, further changes can be expected.

In general, the syllabus, plus texts, worked rather well, some years better than others. I had hoped the Rader volume would be available forever (Sadly, as of Fall, 2001, the Rader volume is out of print). Much of the other material I wanted was in the Margolis volumes, but as of the Fall term of 1996, that anthology was no longer available. There were others on the market, but none I wanted to use. I tried having the materials I wanted to use xeroxed and made available in the University library's "Reserve Room," but that was not an entirely satisfactory procedure. The materials were little used. The obvious aiswer seemed to be to prepare my own anthology, but, as noted above, that approach had problems, too, so I now plan to depend more on technology, and the two Carroll books.

Return to basics. What are the issues in the philosophy of art? Begin with the question "What is Art?" I know, for example, whether the object in my hand is a felt-tip pen, or a razor, or a handgun--but how do I know whether or not an object is a work of art? Are there defining characteristics? If not, can just anything, and everything, count as art (chaos reigns!)?

Questions in the philosophy of art, as I see them, tend to be grouped (roughly) into three areas: those concerning the maker of the art work, questions about the work itself, and those regarding the tasks of the appreciators of art. And so we can ask, why do artists do what they do? Is what an artist does different in kind (and, if so, how?) from what a teacher, ar a fireman, or a grocery clerk, does? Do art works have meaning? Indeed, is art a kind of language (should college students then, be permitted to take art as a substitute for German or French?)? Can an art work be evaluated, i.e., are some works better than others? Surely, it would seem so. If so, are there objective standards to evaluate them? My aesthetics course is concerned with these and similar questions, and the readings tend to be grouped accordingly. I confess that early in the course I also have a few lectures dedicated to some major philosophers who did work on aesthetics, e.g. John Dewey, Henri Bergson, George Santayana, etc.

For my own course, I have chosen a number of essays (and I tried to keep the number down) which I consider to be just basic materials, such as the essays by Sibley, Isenberg, and Bouwsma. I also added essays and a bibliography or two (even a couple of my things) which I thought could have explanatory value.

Philosophers can never resist making a few additional observations. There is not space here (nor ability on my part) for a history of aesthetics, even of aesthetics in the 20th-and now the 21st- century. Suffice it to say that, in my view, the history of aesthetics has not exhibited a steady, orderly development. Rather, there have been a number of great, or at least significant, works that the student should know: Aristotles's Poetics, Longinus's On the Sublime, Kant's Critique of Judgment, and scholars could debate other candidates for the list. In the 20th century, there were a number of classic and near-classic works. I listed the names of such major authors as Dewey, Santayana, Croce, and Bergson, and would add S.C. Pepper, D.W. Prall, Curt Ducasse, and Theodore Meyer Greene (see Bibliography). But the fact is that, in the 20th century, much of the significant work in aesthetics appeared first as articles in the so-called learned journals. In America (which has led the way in this area), Lydia Goehr seems right in saying, as she does in her very perceptive essay, that the discipline has been dominated to a really incredible degree by the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, and its sponsoring American Society for Aesthetics. That journal seems to have been quite consciously modeled on the Zeitschrift fur Aesthetik und Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft which was published from 1906, edited by the German scholar Max Dessoir, until about 1943, when, by the accounts I have heard, the Nazi government forced this great periodical to be discontinued. In its early years, the JAAC had on its editorial board a distinguished group: Van Meter Ames, Thomas Munro, Helmut Hungerland, Virgil Aldrich, Monroe Beardsley, and many others. I am delighted to learn that students at Baylor, where I teach, can now access all of the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism online!! JSTOR, one of our best databases, has the journal from the start, in 1941, to about 1998; EBSCOhost has from 1975 to "the present", but that is often an issue or two short, and an "Online subscription" takes us right up to date!! The Society, and the Journal, still boast many scholars deserving of respect. Some of their essays are discussed in my course. But, sadly, in my judgment, the Society, and the Journal, have taken a number of wrong turns in recent years, and the discipline of aesthetics has suffered as a result. I do not see as many publications by major scholars grappling with major issues. Instead, I see bright young people wasting energy on feminist issues, and environmental studies, and other tasks that do not seem to me to add much to our understanding of the arts.

Obviously, I cannot expect my younger colleagues to see things as I do. {A perfect example of a view quite different from mine-to say the least-may be found on the Web (where else?). "Aesthetics On-Line" is the official website for the American Society for Aesthetics. Check out the essay, "The Philosophical Status of Aesthetics", by Mary Devereaux.}.They (my colleagues) often see me as wistfully longing for the past glories of an age which is gone, and which, in truth, probably never was. What I see as decline, they see as bold new innovations, as building a bridge to the 21st century. Perhaps they are right..... I could easily be wrong in my prediction as to where the discipline of aesthetics is going, or where my students, or other scholars in the area, may wish it to go in the future.

In any case, philosophical work, if it is to amount to anything, requires grounding in basic sources. Meaningful advance in any area requires knowing where we are, and how we got here. And it such groundind the present course, and my new syllabus, is intended to provide. I leave the task of completing the work to my younger colleagues.