Assigned Reading
Maggie McBrady
"There is no science of the beautiful, but only a Critique"
While writing my research paper on feminist art I came across an article that said feminist artists try to breakdown conceptions of fine art by not following fine arts "rules". A few of the rules mentioned were not using crafts in fine art and fine art being the work of a lone genius. I was initially confused and thought "Shouldn't art just be art not matter what form it comes in?".
Kant and I are in agreement. In the section of Fine Art Kant writes that "There is no science of the beautiful, but only a Critique". If science were involved then there would be requirements and steps that needed to be taken to prove beauty. Beauty would fail to remain a "judgement of taste". If we ascribe rules to what is beautiful we are restricting beauty. Kant defines an object as beautiful if it pleases apart from all interest; if you can look at an object and appreciate it for what is being presented to you.
A second definition Kant offers is agreeable art. He defines agreeable art as those that have "mere enjoyment for their object". The examples he offers are hosting a dinner party where the guest sit around the dinner table in "unrestrained and sprightly conversation". I think agreeable art shouldn't be a type of art but an attribute that art can have. If looking at a piece by Picasso gives you the same giddy feeling then agreeable art should be an element of it.
For if the purpose of art is to escape into the wonder of beauty happiness or gaiety as Kant mentions should be a welcomed element in all arts.
No comments:
Post a Comment