Kant writes: "If we judge objects merely according to concepts, then all representation of beauty is lost." (p. 106).
What (on earth) does he mean? Which other Kant-concept/idea could you connect this statement to? Give it your best shot in a not too long blog.
Kant is reinforcing his position that the judgment of taste is aesthetical through his statement, “if we judge objects merely according to concepts, then all representation of beauty is lost.” Kant believes that the beauty of art is not distinguished by a judgment of cognitive understanding for an object, but instead by aesthetical meaning. I completely agree with Kant, for if society were to strictly critique art on a cognitive level then each piece of art would merely have a title and become a definition rather than a form that is sentimental and beautiful.
In judging objects according to only concepts, Chris Jordan’s photograph illustrating 2.3 million folded prison uniforms would be exactly as it is represented by the text statistic. The piece would signify the exact same thing to everyone in society because of the objective nature by which it was judged and it would fail to promote awareness about criminal justice by evoking emotion.
We know that Kant’s position holds valid to society today because art pieces have different meanings to different people. Kant’s thought that the determining judgment of art is subjective is further supported by the cliché that “the beauty of art lies within the eyes of the beholder.”
I feel that Kant’s belief regarding the judgment of taste connects to elements of Hume’s idea pertaining to “the standard of taste.” Hume expressed that “beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” Through his statements, Hume essentially communicated if we judge objects merely according to concepts, then all representation of beauty is lost because beauty results from individual meaning and sentiment. It is evident that both Kant and Hume agree that the judgment of taste is aesthetical and that beauty is derived by subjective means.
Image Above:
Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804)
www.stumpertenrod.de/mf_08_immanuel_kant.jpg
"It is evident that both Kant and Hume agree that the judgment of taste is aesthetical and that beauty is derived by subjective means." - indeed, Derick. But what do we do with Kant's "universal satisfaction"?
ReplyDeleteI like your connection to Chris Jordan's exhibit. When looking at the prison uniforms, there are many different ways I thought of to interpret it and it makes sense that everyone does not have the same view. In this sense, Kant's approach does not work and likely art would not have the same meaning because of the lack of emotion.
ReplyDelete