Immanuel Kant Critique of Judgment 1790 Kant on the judgment of taste

Kant contrasts his position on the aesthetic judgment with Empiricism AND earlier forms of Rationalism According to Empiricists (like Hume): We determine if an object is beautiful on the basis of a FEELING of pleasure or displeasure There is NO necessity or requirement that everyone who makes a genuine judgment on the beauty of an object should be in agreement

According to Rationalists (like Reid and Leibniz): We determine if an object is beautiful on the basis of the PERFECTION of the object. This determination is based on REASON and NOT on the feeling of pleasure or displeasure that we experience from the object If a judgment of taste (or beauty) has been correctly made that judgment MUST hold for EVERYONE who judges the beauty of the same object. Everyone IS required to accept the judgment

Kant argues for a position BETWEEN Empiricism and Rationalism He agrees with Empiricism that the judgment of taste IS determined by the feeling of pleasure or displeasure, and NOT by any rule of perfection governing the form of the object He agrees with Rationalism that the judgment of taste claims the necessary agreement of everyone, i.e. it claims universal necessary validity

Kant’s attempt to find a path between these apparently conflicting positions – Empiricism and Rationalism – constitutes one of his major contributions to aesthetics

Kant’s own analysis of the judgment of taste (or beauty) This is divided into what he calls FOUR MOMENTS; that is, into Four Parts Together these Four Moments (or Parts) are intended to provide a full analysis of the judgment of taste,‘X is (or is not) beautiful’

First Moment The judgment of taste is determined IMMEDIATELY by a disinterested feeling of pleasure or displeasure Since the judgment must be disinterested, the feeling cannot be connected with any DESIRE for the existence (or non-existence) of the object The feeling cannot be based on the object’s CONTENT – any of its secondary qualities, including colours or sound tones – because these DO arouse a desire for the object (according to Kant)

First Moment Where the pleasure arises from an object’s CONTENT (secondary qualities, like colours or sound tones), Kant claims that we say the object is AGREEABLE or GRATIFIES the senses Only where the pleasure arises from an object’s FORM or DESIGN, do we say the object is BEAUTIFUL, Kant claims

First Moment Despite the differences between the judgment of beauty and that of the agreeable, they are ALIKE in that the pleasure felt is always IMMEDIATE Both types of judgment are to be CONTRASTED with any judgment of the good or perfect. With judgments of the good or perfect, the pleasure felt is always MEDIATED BY the application of a rule or concept of the object

Conclusions of the First Moment The judgment of taste (or beauty) is to be DISTINGUISHED both from the judgment of the agreeable and from the judgment of the good or perfect The judgment of taste is determined IMMEDIATELY by a DISINTERESTED feeling of pleasure or displeasure

Second Moment Here Kant argues that the judgment of taste claims the agreement of EVERYONE How so? Because, in making a judgment of taste, I need to DETACH myself from any factors that are peculiar to me and, without the application of any concept to the object, feel pleasure or displeasure

Second Moment I must simply judge whether the object’s mere FORM or DESIGN, apart from any concept, gives me a feeling of pleasure So I am conscious of being free BOTH from any factors that are personal to me AND from any concept of the object (like the concept of perfection)

Second Moment When we judge an object to be beautiful, we do not think that our judgment merely holds for ourselves personally Kant notes that to claim that an object is merely beautiful FOR ME is an improper use of the concept beautiful In judging an object to be beautiful, we DEMAND the agreement of everyone just AS IF we based our judgment on a concept of the object (like the concept of perfection)

Conclusion of the Second Moment The judgment of taste claims the agreement of EVERYONE, but APART from the application of any rule or concept to the object. We base our judgment on whether the form or design of the object gives us pleasure, independently of applying any concept or rule to the object.

Third Moment The Third Moment is concerned with HOW we reflect on the FORM or DESIGN of an object when making a judgment of taste

Third Moment The Rationalist, Leibniz, maintained that judgments of beauty are, in reality, CONFUSED judgments of perfection According to Leibniz, while the judgment of beauty SEEMS to be based on an immediate feeling of pleasure, it is UNCONSCIOUSLY based on the mind judging the perfection of the object (with the feeling of pleasure as a mere consequence)

Third Moment Kant DENIES that our judgments of taste are confused judgments of perfection He holds that in making judgments of taste, we must reflect on the object’s design WITHOUT considering whether the design is suitable or perfect for any end or purpose of the object

Third Moment Kant concludes by saying that ‘Beauty is the manifestation of design in an object INDEPENDENT of any designed end or purpose that the object may have’ Hence, in judging the beauty of an object, the feeling of pleasure or displeasure IS based on reflecting on design, but independently of applying any CONCEPT or RULE to that design, like the concept of perfection

Fourth Moment In the Fourth Moment, Kant considers the following question: ‘How can anyone have the right to hold that their feeling of pleasure or displeasure is the feeling that others are REQUIRED or OUGHT to feel, if they too make a correct judgment of taste on the same object?’ For, Kant holds, we do claim universal NECESSARY validity for our judgments of taste (or beauty)

Fourth Moment His answer is that we judge the beauty of an object by only employing those faculties – imagination and understanding – which we MUST all share in order to perceive the same objects Provided we employ our imagination and understanding FREELY in judging the design of an object – that is, WITHOUT considering any end or purpose of the object - we MUST all agree in our judgments of taste on that object

Conclusion of the Fourth Moment We are justified in claiming that the beautiful is what, apart from any concept or rule, is recognized as the object of a NECESSARY delight (or feeling of pleasure), i.e. a delight that everyone OUGHT or is REQUIRED to feel

Summary of the Four Moments A Judgment of Taste (‘This is beautiful’) is: Determined IMMEDIATELY by a disinterested FEELING OF PLEASURE Claimed to hold UNIVERSALLY NOT based on any concept of the object (like the concept of perfection), but based on the FREE employment of our imagination and understanding in reflecting on the form of the object Claimed to hold NECESSARILY

Questions raised by the Four Moments Some Puzzles about the First Moment: Do colours and sound tones really make NO contribution to an object’s beauty, as Kant affirms? Is it correct, as Kant claims, that colours and sound tones, when they give pleasure, always arouse a DESIRE for the existence of the object, and so do NOT give us a disinterested pleasure?

Further issues raised by the Four Moments How does Kant explain the existence of DISAGREEMENT in our judgments of taste? Is Kant correct to hold that, in judging the beauty of an object, we do not apply ANY concept to the object (e.g. the concept of perfection)? What reason is there for believing that the FREE use of imagination and understanding will produce the SAME pleasure in everyone? How can we ever PROVE that anyone has made a correct judgment of taste?

Possible advantages of Hume's position Beauty is NOT confined to the mere form of an object, independent of any concept We can find beauty in an object because its parts are well made for the type of object in question - as with a beautifully fitting dress We can find beauty in the colours or sound tones of an object - as with the colours of a painting or the particular musical instruments used for playing a piece of music

Possible advantages of Kant's position A judgment of beauty must hold for everyone without exception. It is NOT based on a mere generalization about what MOST people would acknowledge as beautiful Each of us, with practice, is as good as anyone else at judging beauty - since we all have the same judging faculties (understanding and imagination), and they must work together in the same way for all of us

Which Theory is the most justified? These are some of the possible advantages of each theory But which of the two theories – Hume’s or Kant’s - do you think is the most RATIONALLY defensible?

Kant on Genius All true artists, all creators of beauty, must possess genius No scientist or mathematician can be a genius Only the artist can be a genius

Why does Kant hold that all true artists must be geniuses? In order to create a beautiful object, there can be NO rules of beauty by which the artist constructs the object Instead the artist must display ORIGINALITY These claims follow from what Kant has already maintained about our judging or experiencing beauty

When we judge the beauty of a work, there are no rules for determining its beauty (UNLIKE judging its perfection) We simply reflect on the design of the object, independent of any thought of the end or purpose of that object, and see whether the design produces a feeling of disinterested pleasure If it does, we say the object is beautiful

Given this is how we judge beauty, it follows that no object of genuine beauty can be dependent on rules of beauty for its creation If the artist employed rules of beauty in the creation of his work, we – the audience – could learn to judge the work’s beauty by learning these rules But there are NO rules for judging the beauty of an object. Therefore there can be no rules for creating beauty

The artist must create the design of the work of art without having produced that design by following any known rules of beauty An artist, a creator of beauty, must therefore display genuine ORIGINALITY UNLIKE a craftsman who can be very SKILLFUL but who produces work merely by following a known pattern or rule

At the same time, Kant recognizes that all the fine arts – literature, painting, sculpture, music and so on – do require the artist to learn the academic rules, the grammar, of that fine art But the originality of the artist, his genius, comes in the way he USES these academic rules to create a new work. A true artist must be capable of producing something ORIGINAL which gives disinterested pleasure

While many might agree that our idea of the genius does include the features that Kant indicates, it may also be questioned whether this idea of genius can have any application Why do you think it is questionable whether Kant’s idea of genius can have any application?

Why does Kant hold that there are no geniuses in Science or Mathematics? In these areas, Kant holds that we operate according to rules already existing in our minds No true originality is required to discover laws of science or mathematics because the laws are discovered by means of a determinate process already existing in our minds, not by any genuine act of originality

The Sublime Kant also connects our judgments of the sublime in nature (or art) with our moral nature Objects of nature (or art) are NEVER sublime in themselves It is our ATTITUDE OF MIND, sparked by certain experiences of nature, which is truly sublime

The Sublime Our sense of the sublime originates from the sight of FORMLESSNESS or even CHAOS in natural events, provided they are of GREAT MAGNITUDE or POWER Examples: The ocean and everything in it overwhelmed by a mighty storm. The huge eruption of a powerful volcano.

The Sublime In the face of these fearsome natural occurrences, we recognize our own PHYSICAL inferiority Yet, at the same time, we are capable of feeling a real SUPERIORITY over nature We recognize in ourselves something that is far greater than anything in the natural world: that is, our MORAL capacity to overcome all natural temptations and exercise FREE WILL

The Sublime Nature is NOT sublime but certain events in nature have the capacity to show us that WE possess something that IS sublime, our Rational Moral Capacity: ‘The sublime does not reside in any of the things of nature, but only in our mind, insofar as we may become conscious of our superiority over nature’ (Kant)

The Sublime Just as we should seek to cultivate our interest in the beauties of nature, so we should seek to develop our interest in the sublime. An interest in the sublime fosters a deep respect for our MORAL NATURE and helps to free us from our passive desires and inclinations

Difference between the Beautiful and the Sublime While nothing in nature is strictly sublime, we do think that certain natural forms are really beautiful So in the case of the beautiful (but not the sublime) the question arises as to HOW certain natural forms – beautiful objects - are capable of giving us a pleasure that can claim to hold necessarily for everyone, independent of any concept (any use) of the object

Explanation of the Beauties of Nature How, that is, are we to explain the suitability of so many objects in nature – beautiful objects – to arousing our immediate sense of beauty? We can explain why these natural objects (beautiful objects) are capable of requiring all of us to take immediate disinterested pleasure in them only by supposing that the ultimate cause of nature has so arranged the design of these objects that they are adapted to producing such disinterested pleasure in all of us