{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0238290879211175, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0024650780608052587, 'mean_word_length': 5.498220640569395, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism

precedent in Kant’s aesthetics—according to McMahon’s interpretation of the CJ. Pragmatist aesthetics as a successor to Kantian aesthetics should therefore be seen in the sense of temporally subsequent though—in McMahon’s view—substantially similar to the earlier theory. I have noted that the title and subtitle of the book indicate two arguments that are simultaneously defended throughout the text. The result is a very busy book: each chapter methodically introduces some components of McMahon’s pragmatist framework and contains most of the following elements. First, McMahon introduces aspects of the contemporary pragmatist theory. As noted, she frequently enlists the research of other contemporary philosophers of mind to support her claims. Works of contemporary artists, including Olafur Eliasson, Bill Henson, Daniel von Sturmer, Mischa Kuball, Sean Cordeiro, and Claire Healy, are used to illustrate roles of the components she introduces in the activity of artistic appreciation. Second, she describes the relevance of each component of her aesthetic theory—typically couched in terms employed by Kant in the CJ— for moral judgments. Third, when relevant, she argues for a historical connection between Kant’s CJ and the employment of Kant’s term(s) in her contemporary pragmatist theory. Fourth, McMahon’s claims of historical connections require her to provide evidence for her revisionist interpretation of the CJ. McMahon’s contemporary aesthetic theory is presented in a way that is isomorphic with—and employs nomenclature from—Kant’s aesthetic framework in the CJ. If the reader is familiar with Kant’s CJ, then they are presented with a modern pragmatist aesthetic theory that is couched in Kantian terms that are based on an unorthodox reading (for example, of sensus communis, “disinterested pleasure” and “aesthetic ideas”). Some might find that the exposition and defence of the modern pragmatist theory that McMahon proposes would be more clearly conveyed if the text were not encumbered with the concurrent goal of attempting to argue for the historical precedence of major components in Kant’s framework. Further, there are some places in the text where either more textual support from the CJ would be useful in motivating the exegetical argument or where further defense of the selected philosophical accounts that constitute the modern pragmatist theory is called for. As an example of the latter, when considering theories regarding the interaction between beliefs and our capacities for visualization, McMahon sides against Langland-Hassan by endorsing what is labeled the “Impinging Generalization View” (pp. 131–135). This theory is preferred over its competitors because it fits within the overall framework and provides greater explanatory power within the context of that framework than does its competitors. But the viability of McMahon’s account would have been better supported by an argument that directly addressed Langland-Hassan’s objection against the view that it is unclear how visualisations, construed as “commitments” can affect background beliefs (p. 133). This is a book that presents an argument for the value of contemporary art practices—particularly installation art. McMahon’s utilization of works by contemporary artists to provide concrete applications of her aesthetic theory is welcome and interesting. The various claims that McMahon makes regarding Kant’s aesthetic theory will—in a way that seems to parallel her account of the function of art—provoke reflection on our preconceived understanding of the notions that Kant employs in the CJ.