have said in this paper should lead the reader to think that I endorse any
sort of censorship in the arts; to denounce certain tendencies in art is
certainly not the same thing as to prohibit their expression.
I do believe that certain tendencies to disrupt aesthetic experience
are quite problematic for the humanizing function of art, which is a
function that, I believe, gives art its greatest value. When surrounded by
monstrous, barbaric conditions such as those that surrounded the pris-
oners of Auschwitz, art that privileged incoherence, turned away from
any engagement with the sensibilities of the viewer, from any attempt to
create a window to ideal conceptions grander and more beautiful than
life provides, would disconnect prisoners from the world, uproot them
from all connections to their past. Dante’s verses or the Hollywood films
of Astaire and Rogers enabled Primo Levi to reestablish a link with the
past, saving it from oblivion and reinforcing his human identity. In rec-
ollecting works of art, Levi was reminded that his mind had not ceased
to function, that he belonged to a tradition of human creation that was
larger than the dead, gray environment in which he was imprisoned. In
reconnecting him to a sense of shared humanity, art helped to save
Primo Levi. We do well to keep in mind that coherence and the experi-
ential goals of pleasure and affect, elements central to aesthetic experi-
ence, are also central to the very possibility art offers to give us access
to grander and more beautiful ideals than life can offer, so if we want to
preserve art’s humanizing function, we should be worried and prepared
to take action when confronted with art that turns its back on aesthetic
experience.^36
The Humanizing Function of Art 93