Last Friday, Dr. Marcia Baron, OC ’76, James H. Rudy Professor of Philosophy at Indiana University, presented her lecture “Aesthetic Manipulation?” in King Building.

Over the course of the lecture, Baron discussed what aesthetic manipulation is and the discourse surrounding its existence. She explored the notion that there is a constant and active interplay between an artist’s intention, the art’s expression, and the viewer’s conceived perception.

Baron expressed excitement regarding the opportunity to engage with students in a way that is more conversational than overly formal.

“With this particular paper, I’m more interested in generating a discussion and hearing what people have to say,” she said. “So, it’s a little bit more of a collaborative thing. I think, with academic work, that you’re trying to not just do something on your own, but draw from what others have done and spark their interest. But in this case I was doing that even more because I was trying to get people thinking about what conditions would have to be met for something to count as aesthetic manipulation.”

Pursuant to her belief that academia should stand upon intentional dialogue, Baron’s ideas also rely on the intellectual work of those who have come before her, though her arguments are still new and absolutely her own. She credited Claudia Mills’ paper, “Manipulation as an Aesthetic Flaw,” as the work that pushed her to ask these questions in the first place.

Baron’s inquiry into the role of art as a manipulative force focused primarily on the interactions between filmmaker and audience, which she described as contractual in nature. 

“When you go to a movie there is a test of understanding, almost as if you’ve signed a contract with [the] filmmaker,” Baron said to the room full of students. “You put yourself in their hands, you let them stimulate your thoughts, your senses, and your emotions. It’s part of the contract that they’re not going … to just work on you in some crude way, pushing your buttons to get you to feel intense fear or sadness.”

As Baron set out to do, the students that attended the talk left with more questions than answers.

“I’m still skeptical of whether or not aesthetic manipulation is its own phenomena,” College third-year Ryan Hoff said. “And even if it is, I’m definitely not convinced that it’s a flaw. I think, if anything, it might be an indicator of strength. My favorite art pieces are the ones that move me the most, and what’s aesthetic manipulation if not causing you to feel a certain way.”

Third-year Philosophy major Aidan Walsh noted that Baron challenged his own perception of aesthetic manipulation.

“Aesthetic manipulation can’t be divorced from manipulation to the degree that [Baron] was advocating for without losing the fundamental part of why it’s considered manipulation,” Walsh said. “I don’t know if I’ve managed to reconcile her account of aesthetic manipulation with my own yet, but it certainly helps disrupt a lot of the unconscious thinking I had about it, and I think that’s really what philosophy lectures [should] do, ideally.”

Baron was successful in getting students to engage with her thinking, as was evident in the lively Q&A that followed her lecture. In addition to this project having intentions beyond that of typical research, it also falls under an area of study that is not as familiar to Baron. 

“This is a different paper than most of my papers because I’m stepping outside my comfort zone because I’m not in aesthetics,” Baron said. “But I’ve published on manipulation and thought a lot about that, especially in an interpersonal context. [I’m] inspired by these kinds of experiences, where people may not realize how hard they’re making it for somebody to say no. And so, in a certain sense, you might say it isn’t manipulative — they weren’t trying to make sure you would feel unable to say no, but, nonetheless, they are setting things up.”

Baron’s talk was part of the Nancy K. Rhoden Lecture series, which serves to memorialize Rhoden, OC ’74, and her scholarly devotion to medical ethics and the philosophy of law. The talk showcased that an audience can walk into a room, engage with a new idea, and leave with the ability to have civil discourse. Those with previous knowledge may have more to say, but everyone has the authority to ask a valuable question.