The centrality of art in the Critique of Judgment

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2318-8863.discurso.2023.215679

Keywords:

Kant, beauty, art, universal voice, sensus communis

Abstract

Although natural objects are usually considered the most paradigmatic case for Kant’s discussions of beauty in the third critique, we find many references to art in the “Transcendental Deduction” developed in §§30-38. In this paper, I argue that nature and art both play central roles in Kant’s aesthetics. Natural beauty is paradigmatic because it better represents the ideal of purity of a pleasure entirely founded in the play of our transcendental faculties; but art is also paradigmatic because it is by making judgments about it that we better strive to achieve such an ideal.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abaci, U. (2008). “Kant’s Justified Dismissal of Artistic Sublimity”. Journal of Aes-thetics and Art Criticism, v. 66, n. 3, p. 237-251.

Abaci, U. (2010). “Artistic Sublime Revisited: Reply to Robert Clewis”. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, v. 68, n. 2, p. 170-173.

Allison, H. E. (2001). Kant’s Theory of Taste: A Reading of the Critique of the Aesthet-ic Judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Clewis, R. (2010). “A Case for Kantian Artistic Sublimity: A Response to Abaci”. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, v. 68, n. 2, p. 167-170.

Crawford, D. W. (1974). Kant’s Aesthetic Theory. Madison: University of Wiscon-sin.

Dobe, J. K. (2010). “Kant’s Common Sense and the Strategy for a Deduction”. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, v. 68, n. 1, p. 47-60.

Friedlander, E. (2017). “On Common Sense, Communicability, and Community”. In: Altman, Matthew C. (org.). The Palgrave Kant Handbook. London: McMil-lan, p. 407-424.

Guyer, P. (1978). “Interest, Nature, and Art: A Problem in Kant’s Aesthetics”. The Review of Metaphysics, v. 31, n. 4, p. 580-603.

Guyer, P. (1997). Kant and the Claims of Taste. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Kant, I. (1902-). Gesammelte Schriften (Akademische Ausgabe). Berlim: Hrsg. von der Königlich-Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin.

Kemal, S. (1991). “Kant, Community and the Evil Poem”. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, v. 14, n. 176, p. 24-38.

Matherne, S. (2019). “Kant on Aesthetic Autonomy and Common Sense”. Philo-sopher’s Imprint, v. 19, n. 24, p. 1 -22.

Nehring, R. (2010). Kritik des Common Sense: Gesunder Menschenverstand, reflektie-rende Urteilskraft und Gemeinsinn. Der Sensus communis bei Kant. Berlim: Duncker & Humblot.

Pillow, K. (1994). “Form and Content in Kant’s Aesthetics: Locating Beauty and the Sublime in the Work of Art”. Journal of the History of Philosophy, v. 32, n. 3, p. 443-459.

Pippin, R. B. (1996). “The Significance of Taste: Kant, Aesthetic and Reflective Judgment”. Journal of the History of Philosophy, v. 34, n. 4, p. 549-569.

Quintana, L. (2013). “The Judgment of Taste in a Cosmopolitan Sense”. In: Ba-cin, S.; Ferrarin, A.; La Rocca, C.; Ruffing, M. (orgs.). Kant und die Philosophie in weltbürgerlicher Absicht: Akten des XI. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses, Bd. 4. Berlim/Boston: De Gruyter, p. 203-214.

Rind, M. (2000). “What Is Claimed in a Kantian Judgment of Taste?”. Journal of the History of Philosophy, v. 38, n. 1, p. 63-85.

Rogerson, K. F. (1982). “The Meaning of Universal Validity in Kant’s Aesthetics”. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, v. 40, n. 3, p. 301-308.

Stoner, S. A. (2019). “Kant on Common-sense and the Unity of Judgments of Taste”. Kant Yearbook, v. 11, n. 1, p. 81-99.

Wicks, R. (1995). “Kant on Fine Art: Artistic Sublimity Shaped by Beauty”. Jour-nal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, v. 53, n. 2, p. 189-193.

Zhouhuang, Z. (2016). Der sensus communis bei Kant: Zwischen Erkenntnis, Mora-lität und Schönheit. Berlim: De Gruyter.

Published

2023-08-31

Issue

Section

Artigos

How to Cite

Vieira, V. (2023). The centrality of art in the Critique of Judgment. Discurso, 53(2), 46-58. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2318-8863.discurso.2023.215679