Is Kant’s definition of the “judgement of taste” still useful or relevant for an understanding of our experience of art today?


Both creating and looking at art involve experience, imagination and understanding. But in order to understand art, is a set of philosophical rules that we must adhere to the answer, or are our minds conditioned in this way? I will be investigating as to whether Immanuel Kant’s definition of the “Judgement of taste” is relevant or useful in our experience of art today; ultimately considering what a judgement of taste entails, its validity in relation to our experience of art and its limitations. In order to comment on Kant’s definition of a “Judgement of taste” being useful to us in the art world today, we need to determine exactly what a judgement of taste is and how it relates to art.
So what are the concepts that form a judgement of taste? Kant was amongst other influential philosophers who undertook similar subjects about Aesthetics in their research; most notably related to Kant was David Hume. Hume published four dissertations in 1757[1]; the essay in our interests is regarding the “standard of taste” where he portrays it as being an aesthetic viewpoint which is made dependently upon the viewer’s positive response, in relation to the “beautiful” object itself. He believed that not all responses were the same or agreeable because of cultural differentiation. Therefore questions surrounding the potential “beauty” of a work of art cannot be settled by a standard of tastes; there are many different tastes that apply to different people, but then again there is also a mutual agreement which can exists amongst them. Kant on the other hand was interested in the conditions of our judgements of taste. Kant’s text is about feeling, in essence, what the nature of the judgement they are making is; what makes us say that things are beautiful and how society and the mind execute this.
Kant has been described as being the person who “posited the autonomy of artistic standards and separated them from moral, political or utilitarian functions”[2]. Interestingly, it was the rise of industrialism and mass production in the 19th century, which saw art lose its value. Aesthetics began to try and “reinvest” art, with artists taking responsibility for the creation of art becoming valued for its standalone beauty. In other words “...Painters strove to create art that moved away from the prosaic world of everyday life toward a transcendental ideal...”[3] Here we see the formation of looking at and representing art in a new way, aesthetically. Furthermore, since the 19th century, discussions surrounding aesthetics have revolved exclusively around fine art.
Kant believed judgements have structures, which imply a whole set of assumptions. Firstly, Kant describes a determinant judgement as passing judgment on objects in the world, including objective judgements of concepts that exist in the world, about the state of the world. We make these judgements with an applied logic or a set of rules in our minds, which are accepted worldwide. For example, a table is known as a table, regarding its name and function, because of the basic rule that the world has given it certain logic. Otherwise known as a cognitive judgement; a subconscious process takes place in the mind. Kant then describes the notion of aesthetics and how we make aesthetic judgements based upon our inner conscious feelings. An aesthetic judgment is an idea made about the inner state of pleasure or displeasure; this can be many things, such as the pleasures in life we experience in order to understand ourselves, and in Kant’s view this is imperative to our understanding of judgement.  Referring back to determinant judgement of which judgements are made of logical thinking i.e. nature, Kant uses this to create the opposite concept of reflective judgement, a judgement made solely on feeling and sensation, not directly from an object.  Strongly in connection with subjective judgments, reflective judgments are made based upon what we feel, not as a universal, logical statement.  Kant distinguishes three categorizations of reflective judgment; systemic, teleological and aesthetical, of which aesthetical is subdivided into judging the beautiful and sublime[4]. Kant recognises a reflective judgement to be based upon purposiveness. That a beautiful object is “correct” in its execution, for the feeling it creates, not for its utilisation. This leads us to Kant’s idea of disinterestedness. When we judge something as beautiful or not, we do not have any concern as to its effects, use or costs.  So how does Kant’s theory apply to art? Using these main concepts of Kant’s theory (mainly objective and subjective; the good, agreeable, Beautiful, the sublime and moral judgement) we shall now question whether they are still relevant or useful in our understanding and experience of art today.
For Kant, it was important that when an aesthetic judgement was made (a purely aesthetic one, not cognitive), it is detrimental that others agree with you. At the same time, judgements of taste may also be subjective; leaving us feeling our personal judgement or sensation, in which makes the object important to us, as well as feeling the sense of universality also; ultimately a judgement of taste must claim to a subjective universality.  Obviously, everyone has different opinions and tastes when it comes to judging or appreciating art, so now we will look at how Kant’s theory can be utilised in the art world today. The example of a portrait can help us understand Kant ideas of the subjective in art, as portraits are one of the highly accessible art forms. When looking at the human form in art, most people would accredit it as being either beautiful or otherwise unappealing. Whether it be a classic painting of Venus, or a photograph of someone they know personally, there is a universal agreement as to what people should find beautiful. This relates back to cultural conditioning and what is acceptable within society. This to a certain extent is true. In our homes today we would not purposely frame a portrait that had been made deliberately to look vulgar, or diverted from the typical norm.  Moreover, people’s homes are more liable to have a portrait of the Mona Lisa on the wall, rather than a portrait by Giuseppe Arcimboldo. This is because we have certain knowledge, a thought which is transcendental in our approach of judgements. This applies as to when we see people in pictures that we have a personal connection with of which we have gained trough experience with this person, it is our judgement of them within the world which causes us to have a judgement based on pleasure. This brings us onto the notion of a priori and the idea of moral judgments. We know that work of notoriously explicit and honest artists, may not be as subjectively aesthetical in judgement by most people, definitely not all people. We make determinate actions, which are formed from choice. We can choose a judgement based upon several possibilities. Kant describes will or choice as part of the lower faculty of desire.[5]
 When looking at a piece of artwork we may apply one of these judgements to it as our opinion; good, agreeable and beautiful. Good being a liking in cognition or logic, agreeable being a liking in sensation with interest and enjoyment (Kant’s example of Canary wine being nice)[6], or beautiful, a liking without a need for interest or a concept, which requires agreement from everyone.  For example, in an objective sense the good has a required logic which most people adhere to. When we visit art exhibitions in galleries, who decide which artists and what works are to be exhibited to a wide audience? The answer to this we know is curators and directors. But it is them in which the judgments take place, whether it is a logical judgement, agreeable or in fact beautiful. Moreover, these judgments will in fact take effect upon gallery visitors. What one viewer may find judgementally good, another may find agreeable or beautiful. Showing a difference from objective to agreeable judgment, (it has a purpose and needs to be in the world) or the beautiful in which the first two judgements don’t suffice, it is a disinterested judgment, we like purely for what it is. In essence, this is what a gallery does. We have thought about the aesthetic subjective role of art in the museum, but what is interesting, is that the objective judgement can also be applied, in the modernistic form of contemporary art. When we see an object, for example an untitled yellow mattress by the artist Rachel Whiteread[7], we are led to an objective feeling, it processes in our mind as an object in the world, and the viewer may consciously or subconsciously know this whilst viewing the work. In which case, Kant’s theory may apply to our experience of art today.
In conclusion, we all use logic or understanding in order to gain the experience of art. Some of which we find good, agreeable and collectively beautiful. As for Kant’s definition of the judgment of taste being useful or relevant in our understanding of our experience of art, I can agree that it is useful but to some degree. In my opinion it is relevant in the way in which we choose to see things, in other words, I think Kant’s definition becomes relevant if we are aware of its significance to our understanding. Furthermore, it is important when applied to art historian’s views when judging works, because the judgement of taste is ultimately how the mind processes opinions in relation to art, and to be aware of these theories is detrimental in making a well informed judgement. It is useful in relation to aiding our understanding as to why we find something pleasurable or not and how our minds have been conditioned over the years.  If we think about it in simple terms, whether we find something beautiful or ugly is the main concept of aesthetical judgement. In Kant’s definition, it is presupposed by us that we make aesthetical judgements about nature, and non aesthetical judgements about works of art, but in today’s society this is not the case. Kant’s notion of “disinterestedness” I find to be not as relevant in our understanding of art today. Kant describes disinterestedness as only applying to a judgement of the beautiful. However, when we find something beautiful, and it could well be a piece of art, we usually find some inner connection of interest with the piece, if it has such an effect upon us. We must be interested to a certain extent to want to have it placed upon our walls. So after analysing Kant’s definition and concepts of a judgement of taste and applying them to the art world, we can make a judgement on whether his philosophy is indeed relevant or useful. Conclusively, I feel that the definition is useful, but is reliant upon the viewer’s conscious and subconscious awareness of the concept, in order to apply it to our own judgements; from an art historian’s viewpoint, it is useful for understanding the minds processes of aesthetical judgements. The only relevance I find in the definition is the notion of a subjective and objective divide in sensation. The theory can be relevant in the form of a study in the foundations of judgements along with Vasari and Hume’s contributions.





Bibliography:
S.L.Stratton-Pruitt, Masterpieces of western painting, Velazquez’s Las Meninas, Cambridge university press, 2003. P.88.
Burnham, D. An introduction to Kant’s Critique of Judgement, Edinburgh University Press 2000.
Immanuel Kant, Werner S. Pluhar, Critique of judgment, Hackett Publishing, 1987, pg. 55.
L. Hawksley, A. Cunningham, L.Payne, K. Bradbury. Essential History of Art, Parragon Books 2001. Pg.249.

Websites:
http://www.uri.edu/personal/szunjic/philos/critjudg.htm



[1] The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 52, No. 2 (spring, 1994), pp. 169.
[2] S.L.Stratton-Pruitt, Masterpieces of western painting, Velazquez’s Las Meninas, Cambridge university press, 2003. P.88.
[3] S.L.Stratton-Pruitt, Masterpieces of western painting, Velazquez’s Las Meninas, Cambridge university press, 2003. P.88.

[4] http://www.uri.edu/personal/szunjic/philos/critjudg.htm
[5] Burnham, D. An introduction to Kant’s Critique of Judgement, Edinburgh University Press 2000. pg 10-11.
[6] Immanuel Kant, Werner S. Pluhar , Critique of judgment , Hackett Publishing, 1987, pg 55.

[7] L. Hawksley, A. Cunningham, L.Payne, K. Bradbury. Essential History of Art, Parragon Books 2001. Pg.249.

Comments

Popular Posts