We live in a time when this is considered a rightwing book
In light of Kant I feel like I’ve been practicing a form of affirmative action detailing some of those literary types.
Yess… the first page of this (1990) study discusses how an Objective Order used to be believed in in Europe. The 18th century has been called the Century of Taste. Today we interpret “taste” to imply something personal/subjective and not universal.
Man, this white boy summer if you want to feel like a savage read Kant, I forgot how humbling it is being in the presence of his sharpness. If I remember correctly he called Beethoven the German equivalent of a “redneck” if that tells you anything.
I’m reminded of the Kabbalah reading this study. Kant is the Ein Sof and he has to be filtered through the sephiroth.
Here’s a taste- you might wonder what this could possibly do with art
The idea was to show that the concept of purposiveness, which is the a priori principle of judgment in its logical, aesthetic, and teleological reflection, does, indeed, provide a unifying principle.
See the dialectic here? In my previous post I stood above humanity- next I turn to someone who stands above me.
Can ideas that are over 200 years old still be considered “groundbreaking”?
Kant’s account of fine art seems to suggest that all judgments of artistic beauty are “logically conditioned,”
We desperately need a “grounding” like this today.
So, he starts with the very basics. Art is not nature. It’s a conscious product, not one of instinct. This is where you can understand why the “teleological” is pertinent- art is created for some end, for some purpose.
He distinguishes between agreeable and fine art. The first pleases one through mere sensations, the other pleases one through ways of cognizing. Another way of saying it is fine art causes one to reflect.
You might think of the adventure genre. That more or less causes sensations. It’s more emotional than cognitive. Adrenaline. While romance is similar in causing uh blood flow, etc. And I’m excited for that study on adventure to arrive because I expect it to prompt reflection. Like Bloom said, literary criticism can be an art unto itself.
Kant is similar to that forbidding mountain, sometimes you have to get over an initial anxiety before you can take him in. His works are sublime artworks in that sense, if you think of all philosophy as a type of poetry.
This theme again- this is alien to our postmodern age
“deduction” of judgments of fine art
Fine art is dead in our time, and probably not coincidentally, reflection is dead.
He says that, ideally, fine art furthers our mental powers for socializing. So it causes reflection and you reflect with others about it. Contrast that with walking out of a theater after seeing an action movie- “Dude that was AWESOME!” That’s sensation typically, not reflection.
Again, people always think of paintings. No, More’s Utopia is fine art. The Oresteia produces reflection.
I love when foreign countries accuse the US of creating nothing besides “feel good movies”. Yes, those are sensation-producing. If you want to put it like a Hindu, it’s felt in the heart chakra. It’s the chest region that you experience it, not the head. Most people are cut off from their head. This is a consequence of the abundance and all-pervasiveness of “agreeable”, rather than fine, art.
Remember yesterday, this is the kind of stuff Arendt was planning on writing her final book about. It’s too bad we don’t have anyone like her in charge of netflix.
So, for Kant, beauty is linked to what makes you think, and thinking, besides being an end in itself, has the purpose of elevating conversation.