Aesthetics, from its origins and recognition as a discipline, has undergone a significant transformation in its object of study, evolving from the analysis of beauty to encompass art, aesthetic, and artistic experiences. Communication, on the other hand, is more than a discipline; it is a daily act through which we exchange information and attribute meaning to the world. In this sense, I believe the relationship between communication and aesthetics is fundamental to the consolidation of culture and society.

Starting from the idea that aesthetics is linked to art, and art to sensory experience, this experience is expressed and felt through communicative connections with the artwork. Furthermore, as Alfred Gell points out, art possesses social agency, implying a dialectical relationship between a piece and those who engage with it. However, this cycle would be impossible without the communicative phenomenon.

From the perspective of agency, all objects are embedded in concrete flows of social, temporal, and spatial relationships. For Gell, art involves a complex process composed of four elements (artist, index, prototype, and recipient) and two positions (agent and patient). Additionally, objects contain symbolic elements, and what is symbolic is inherently communicative.

To relate this idea to the readings discussed in class, I will first replace the term “art” with “objects.” This is because both Tatarkiewicz and Oliveras present scenarios where aesthetics separates itself from art and beauty as its sole objects of study. Similarly, art diverges from the social processes and imaginaries tied to its production and consumption.

In the dialectics developed by Tatarkiewicz, aesthetics was initially associated with beauty and art studies. Over time, however, elements were added to broaden and enrich the discipline. As a field in constant evolution, aesthetics also began to acknowledge contextual influences from political, social, and economic domains.

Oliveras, for her part, highlights a pivotal era during the Enlightenment, when artists were conceived as autonomous, independent, and creative human beings capable of producing objects without attributing their talent to divine gifts. This shift marked a new historical, political, economic, social, and, above all, philosophical and intellectual paradigm. During this period, reason gained prominence over other senses and abilities, solidifying the separation between Church and State.

Nonetheless, these paradigm shifts underscore a constant and often overlooked element: communication. This complex process of exchanging information builds ideas, sensations, and ways of perceiving and expressing the world. Like communication, aesthetics allows individuals to experience, perceive, and construct new possibilities. Neither discipline is neutral; both are shaped by context, intentions, and symbolic processes embedded in societies.

Incorporating Gell’s concept of agency is crucial for constructing a relational model that provides a broader understanding of the relationship between communication and aesthetics. Objects possess the power of seduction and enchantment, acting as witnesses to the temporalities and ideologies of their time. They become narrators of social dynamics, whose interpretation requires the archaeological and contextual skill of the aesthetician, who acts as a translator between different contexts.

A clear example of the relationship between aesthetics, communication, and culture is propaganda. In the 1920s, in the Soviet Union, propaganda played a key role in disseminating Marxist-Leninist ideology and promoting the Communist Party. It also influenced educational models, determining what could be taught and which disciplines were deemed bourgeois and subsequently eradicated. In this case, aesthetics transcended the study of objects to function as a set of rules governing the forms, methods, and uses of Communist Party propaganda.

Although the relationship between aesthetics and communication may not seem immediately apparent, it is deeply intertwined with the formation of ideologies, cultures, and social beliefs.

Bibliography

Gell, Alfred. Art and Agency. An Anthropological Theory. 1st ed., Buenos Aires, SB, 2016. Oliveras, Elena. Aesthetics. The Question of Art. 2nd ed., Buenos Aires, Ariel, 2006. Tatarkiewicz, Wladyslaw. History of Aesthetics I. Ancient Aesthetics. Trans. Danuta Kurzyka, Madrid, Akal, 2007.