An Overview of Kants Transcendental Analytic and Dialectic

Sacha Golob (sacha.golob@kcl.ac.uk)

Aesthetics, KCL

----I----

Introduction to Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art(1) What is aesthetics? A narrow definition.Heres one possible answer: aesthetics is the study of artistic beauty. This answer has a number of important implications.(1A) It leads to a focus on a specific type of art. Contrast cases of Wilde (the artist is the creator of beautiful things), or Warhol (Art is what you can get away with), or Bacon (I would like my pictures to look as if a human being had passed between them, like a snail leaving its trail of the human presence).

(1B) Historically, it has fostered an emphasis on the links between artistic and natural beauty. This obviously suits both a simple theism, and more sophisticated thinkers like Kant who are grappling with the aftermath of the scientific revolution

(2) What is aesthetics? A broader definition.Heres an alternative definition: aesthetics is the philosophy of art. Thus, e.g., Newman: aesthetics is for artists what ornithology is for birds a type of higher order analysis of the phenomena. Some advantages of this definition:(2A) The first definition is just too narrow. Dont want to close off discussion of post-Dada art like Duchamp; similarly often praise/attack art works for many features besides beauty.(2B) By broadening the definition, we get to the real philosophical questions underlying the beauty debate. Consider case of argument about claustrophobic or repulsive or tedious work. Possible to see aesthetics as playing similar role to meta-ethics; and beauty is then just one part of the general set of phenomena we want to understand.

So will use broader definition. Fine to say art should be understood in terms of beauty but this should be a matter of argument, not stipulation. One consequence, though, is the issue of natures beauty/ugliness etc is going to be largely set aside, although it will feature when discussing Kant in particular (the question of which definition should be prioritised is obviously an important one see, e.g, Gadamer, Truth and Method, Pt.1, Chs1-2).(3) Why should we care about aesthetics? Why should philosophy have anything interesting to say about it?Two issues here: it seems obvious that art is an interesting and significant phenomenon (cases of individual favourite music/books/picture, of art as new religion in West, of Shakespeare and human achievements). More problematic: why should philosophy have anything worthwhile to say about art? Recall Newman quote - birds typically dont care about ornithologists. There is a genuine problem here as youll see from some literature. But there are also reasons to think that philosophy does have something to offer in understanding art and, as well see, this belief driven much most influential phil and art criticism since Greece. Here very artificially divided, since they are all inter-linked are some examples of kind of problem phil might advance.

(3A) Definition. Defined aesthetics in terms of art but what is that? Obvious problem is post-Dada conceptual art. Consider Warhol brillo box and one still in the factory. Is something art because Warhol says so? Can anyone do this? Is the whole definition question worth asking could it plausibly have an answer? For the moment, well operate with an extensional definition only art is that stuff.

(3B) Normativity. Suppose I say the Titian is ugly or Hamlet is tedious or etc. and you disagree. Is one of us wrong? What kind of argument are we having is it like the coffee case, the ethics case, the geography case or none of the above. Obviously closely linked to question of whether artistic evaluations can be true or false (although be careful it is possible that truth may be sufficient but not necessary for normativity: again compare meta-ethics).(3C) Morality? Truth? How does art relate to other norms? Return to Wilde (There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral bookBooks are well written or badly written. That is all). But is this right? Famous examples Riefenstahl, DAFdeS etc. What about truth? Take the case of a novels account of a relationship and how the work might be criticised. But then the phonebook presumably has no artistic merit.

(3D) Creation and the artistic process. Is, for example, painting/sculpting skill necessary? Is it sufficient? What do we think about forgeries? The case of van Meegeren Lady Reading Music or The Supper at Emmaus. Are these pictures of less artistic merit than people thought? If I have a perfect copy of, say, van Goghs Sunflowers in what sense am I worse off?(3E) Criticism and Interpretation. What are we doing when we criticise or interpret a work of art? Is there a right interpretation? Do the authors intentions matter? Do they trump other interpretations?

(3F) Materiality. What is the connection between the sensuous, the physical and what one might call the idea of the work?

(3G) Society. Is being a work of art a social property in the way that, say, being charismatic is? Go back to the two brillo boxes if it is social relations that make the difference there, what about private art? More broadly, in what sense can art express or alter or transform a societys self-image? Take case of Dix. As well see the social nature of art fundamental to Hegel especially. But if art does have this broader social role, should the state seek to control or direct it?

(4) The structure of this module.(4A) Pre reading week. Four hugely influential early modern and modern historical takes on these issues: we will see both how these authors shaped the contemporary agenda and yet also radically diverge from it.(4B) Post Reading Week. Five central debates within contemporary aesthetics. Well look both at the problems highlighted above and at several others: what is kitsch, what makes something a picture of something else, can pornography be art.PAGE 2