glim

‘Adorno’s claims about art in general stem from his reconstruction of the modern art movement. So a summary of his philosophy of art sometimes needs to signal this by putting “modern” in parentheses. The book begins and ends with reflections on the social character of (modern) art. Two themes stand out in these reflections. One is an updated Hegelian question whether art can survive in a late capitalist world. The other is an updated Marxian question whether art can contribute to the transformation of this world. When addressing both questions, Adorno retains from Kant the notion that art proper (“fine art” or “beautiful art”—schöne Kunst—in Kant’s vocabulary) is characterized by formal autonomy. But Adorno combines this Kantian emphasis on form with Hegel’s emphasis on intellectual import (geistiger Gehalt) and Marx’s emphasis on art’s embeddedness in society as a whole. The result is a complex account of the simultaneous necessity and illusoriness of the artwork’s autonomy. The artwork’s necessary and illusory autonomy, in turn, is the key to (modern) art’s social character, namely, to be “the social antithesis of society” (AT 8).’

from Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/adorno/#4

glimmer 1

‘The peculiarity of this alternative mode of relating to the world is that the individual must both judge for herself and, simultaneously, call on the judgement of others.  The context or horizon of taste is always already sociable. not in the sense that we already agree about what is beautiful, but in that it is part of my considering something beautiful that `i care what you think about it’. Agreement may be what I aim for, but in no sense can
it be guaranteed in advance. Kant will return to this tension within the dynamic of taste, but never explicitly explores what we could call the pathos of aesthetic judging.’

from Kant a critique of aesthetic judgement a reader’s guide by Fiona Hughes

so hard! and back to basics!

I started the blog by (I just changed ‘this blog’ to ‘the blog’ because ‘this blog’ assumes i have a reader and I imagine if there were such a one, he/she would be reeling somewhat and I don’t want to make people reel and have learned from experience that it is on the whole better not to make them reel.  On the other hand, someone has surely to be made to reel if anything valuable has to emerge from the fog.  Reeling has to be undertaken and my blog reels.)

I started this blog to examine (slightly rephrased)

what is art?

is a particular object art?

what is good art?

I notice that central (and hidden) in  those issues is Kant’s notion of universal communicability.  Because I find it hard to ask the question ‘what is good art?’ without reference to judgement by other people.  I can admit to liking a piece but have reference to other people before saying it is good and have reference to other people before assessing my own taste.  Oops I am up against the wall which I know to be hard work to climb and to involve quiet hard thinking. and I balk at the task.

WOW

I have found inspiration from Kant for an art work

it is in imaging his sentence: Only when men have got all they want can we tell who
among the crowd has taste or not.

and reproducing in an entirely aesthetic (and by this I mean pleasing to me just because I like it) all the language based encapsulations f the above quote from Kant eg pearls before swine

Critique of Judgement §4-5

§4  Delight in the good is coupled with interest

idea of good in itself as opposed to good for a purpose

in both an end is implied ?

difference between callingsomething good and callingsomething beautiful:

to call something ood i must know what it is ie a concpet

I dont need to have a concept of a thing to see beauty init so an image that has no signifivation and has no oncpet can stillplease and therefore be beautiful

despite their seeming equlivalence the agreeable and the good are not the same

cos the agreeable = that which immediately pleases

and the good = related to a later end

the agreeable does not equal the good

eg I  ind cholcolate agreeable but it is not good for me

also says kant, it is unreasonable to belie e tha there is any intrinsic worth in the life of a man who lives obly for enjoyment

it is only that which a man does heedless of enjoyment or any reward can be called worthwhile

happiness is not ‘an unconditioned good’

Both the agreeabe and the good are both coupled with an interest in their object

§5 three different kinds of delight

agreeable and good are connected with the real existence of the objec

but taaste is simply contemplative

ie indifferent as to the existence

the agreeable/the beautiful/the good

agreeable= what GRATIFIES

beautiful = what PLEASES

good = what is ESTIMMBLE

OF these three, the beautifl is the only disinterested and free delight

INCLINATION (gratify/agreeable

FAVOUR (pleases free)

RESPECT (

Only when men have got all they want can we tell who
among the crowd has taste or not.

Definition of the Beautiful derived from the First Moment.
Taste is the faculty of estimating an object or a mode of representation
by means of a delight or aversion apart from any interest. The object of
such a delight is called beautiful.

what I remember

kant v meier and ?  says sensation can mean two different things: inner feeling and perception of an object

he says aeathetics is about sensation = inner feeling and is yherefore always subjective

he says this feeling is separate from but has equal status witht he other faculties of the mind (reason morals etc)

pat – here heis different from say the frankfurt school who jusged art on moral political grounds

next bit

These grounds are the so-called principle of “subjective purposiveness”
and the contemplation of an object with respect to this principle in a so-called
“free harmonious play” of our cognitive powers.

w says k thinks it is possible to establish grounds for easthetics and that this has never been though about before and that it should revea something abour ushumans.A better understanding of these a priori grounds of judgments of taste
will enable us to explain the phenomenon of the je ne sais quoi.

In order to decide whether or not something is beautiful, we do not relate the
representation by means of understanding to the object for cognition, but rather
relate it by means of the imagination (perhaps combined with the understanding)
to the subject and its feeling of pleasure or displeasure. The judgment of taste is
therefore not a cognitive judgment, hence not a logical one, but is rather aesthetic,
by which is understood one whose determining ground cannot be other than
subjective. (Section 1, 203)

coj §1-3 notes

what I have learned

in coj kant analyses not the art object but ur judgement of he art object

he studies the relation between the subject and the ar object

‘beauty has its root in the acto of contemplation of the object by the subject

it is the form of the object that is part of the judgement of beauty

kant sets out to find new grounds

a priori justifying grounds for the judgement of beauty

the jusdgements are sui generis