KANT - THE CRITIQUE OF JUDGEMENT Philosophy Primarily consists of two faculties

Concepts of Nature - Rests on Understanding - Contains theoretical cognition = Theoretical - Understanding prescribes the laws of the faculty of knowledge

Concepts of Freedom - Rests on Reason - Contains sensuously practical precepts = Practical - Reason prescribes the laws a priori of the faculty of desire

Judgement - Intermediate of Understanding and Reason and thus has its own a priori principle - Judgement prescribes the laws of the faculty of pleasure or displeasure, which stands in between the faculties of knowledge and desire - Judgement makes possible the transition from understanding to reason because pleasure (or displeasure) is necessarily combined with the faculty of desire, and thus a logical employment of judgement makes it possible to transition from pure knowledge to the concept of freedom. - Forms the basis of discriminating and contributes nothing to knowledge.

Determinant Judgement - If the universal is given, then the judgment that is made is then determinant. - Is determined based on universal laws of nature

Reflective Judgement - If the particular is given, and the universal has to be found, the judgement is reflective. -

Judgement = ability to judge = NOT a PURE judgement of taste = very partial Judgement of taste = the ability to make such judgements ARE UNIVERSAL = everyone is able to make judgements about beauty, art and nature = the judgement of taste is an aesthetic and not a cognitive judgement

 To discern whether something is beautiful or not We do not refer to the Object we are looking at We refer to the Subject who is regarding it and his or her feeling of pleasure or displeasure We are not concerned with the real existence of the Object But are instead concerned with what we think based on mere contemplation of it Must be indifferent to the actual existence of the real Object It is not necessary to determine whether something is good Taste Taste is not cognitive (not logical) but subjective Taste is based on the meaning which the Subject can give to the representation of the Object, not on the meaning of the actual Object itself. Interest Interest = the delight which we connect with the representation of a real existence of an object Interest always involves the faculty of desire Sensation Objective sensation = an objective representation of sense (sensation via Object) The green color of grass Subjective feeling = purely subjective, incapable of representation of an object The agreeableness of the green color In which no object is represented but the feeling through which the object is regarded as an Object of delight That which is agreeable is what the senses find pleasing in sensation. The agreeable rests solely on sensation (smells, tastes, sounds) The agreeable represents the object solely in relation to sense This wine is agreeable to me When the modification of the feeling of pleasure of displeasure is termed sensation, the representation is referred to the Object, and not the Subject. (???? p66) Good Good for something (useful, pleases by its function/means) and good in itself (pleases on its own account) In both the concept of an END is implied (practical/reason?), and so delight in the existence of an Object To determine whether something is good, I must have a concept of what it was intended for Good is not necessary to determine whether something is beautiful or not Good is always founded on a concept, meaning for something to be good, there has to be an end, a meaning based on what you think an objects function to be Beautiful The judgement of taste of what is beautiful means that the delight in the object is universal to everyone, this is the essential factor by which anything can be described as beautiful When one makes a judgement that something is beautiful, he is demanding or insisting that others agree with him Vs. The agreeable in which everyone is allowed to have their own opinion

 founded on a concept = based on what you think an objects function to be FIRST MOMENT OF JUDGEMENT OF TASTE Is Subjective Is determined by delight which is independent of all Objective interest SECOND MOMENT OF JUDGEMENT OF TASTE The Subject feels himself completely free in individual liking that he accords to the object on a personal basis, but thinks that his judgement is based on what he thinks everyone likes in the object, and expect everyone else to have similar delight THUS he will speak of the beautiful as if it were coming from the Object, and as though it were a logical judgement, even though it is really only an aesthetic judgement Judgement of taste must involve a claim to validity for all men Must be separate from Objects The ability to make such judgements ARE UNIVERSAL Everyone has his own taste - based on senses (sound, taste, smell) A smell or taste of wine can be agreeable to me THIRD MOMENT OF JUDGEMENT OF TASTE End The end of an object is its ultimate concept, as in function, that which grants the object its cause The archetype of taste at its highest is a mere IDEA It is dependent on the concept of a maximum in the first place, of a highest point The ARCHETYPE OF TASTE = IDEAL OF THE BEAUTIFUL Idea The idea signifies a concept of reason (freedom, faculty of desire, practical) The idea rests upon concepts Ideal The ideal does not rest upon a concept, or a pre-conceived function The ideal rests upon the individual presentation, which comes from the imagination The ideal signifies the representation of an individual existence as adequate to an idea = the ideal of beauty allows for, necessitates even, the ideal of perfection = because the end of perfection is itself sufficiently defined and fixed by the concept of perfection The ideal is only to be sought in the human figure (77) It consists in the expression of the moral, without which the object cannot be universally pleasing The VISIBLE EXPRESSION OF MORAL IDEAS This connects with the morally good to the idea of highest finality Benevolence, purity, strength, etc. One cannot have an ideal of beautiful flowers, furniture, view, etc.

______________________________________________________________________________ Georg Wilhelm Friedrich HEGEL 1770 - 1831 Philosophy of Fine Art Known from Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Arts of 1832-8, originally delivered between 1820-30 at the University of Berlin Art as the vehicle of dependent medium of thought Works of art and not the perception of art, or the beautiful The principal function of the aesthetic was to represent and articulate the spirit Art and history as a narrative process of the unfolding of a divine idea Art has to harmonize the content and the form of art into a totality - the content = Idea The content must be worthy of representation If the content is not qualied, then the form will be awed, because there is a bad combination Content must also be concrete, not abstract. Thus art must also be concrete For example God must be understood in his concrete truth before there can be content for him to be represented The work of art is a call to the mind and the spirit It does not merely exist, like nature, but is capable of displaying spirit (which is in itself concrete) The form and shape of the human body is not only concrete but its form is also made in conformity with the form of the spirit as well The creation of art is thus NOT BY CHANCE But it is also not the highest way of grasping the spiritually concrete - this is thinking and reasoning The appropriate way of representing something - either through art or reasoning - is based on the content of its spirit Greek gods are modeled on the human shape, and so can be represented through art The Christian God is concrete in terms of a pure spirituality, and so the medium of this spirit means that any artistic representation of Him will be imperfect and must only be known through knowledge Since art has the task of presenting the Idea to immediate perception in a sensuous shape and not in the form of thinking and pure spirituality as such... It follows that the loftiness and excellence of art in attaining a reality adequate to its Concept will depend on the degree of inwardness and unit in which Idea and shape appear fused into one. (81) Development of art The universal Idea of artistic beauty = Ideal is the content and subject of art The Idea as reality is the Ideal But this cannot have just any content A defectiveness of inappropriateness of the content will result in an equally poor form, and we should consider this when viewing a defective work of art, which might not be only due to the lack of skill

 art-consciousness and presentation - the distortion of natural formations may be intentional FROM THE ARTISTS MIND Thus, from this point of view, there is imperfect art which in technical and other respects may be quite perfect in its specic sphere, and yet it is clearly defective in comparison with the concept of art itself and the Ideal. (83) Only the highest of art will the Idea be given its absolute and true shape/form in representation, because the content itself is also true and genuine Particular forms of artistic beauty and conguration As particular stages in the development and unfolding of the reconciliations between Idea and content The doctrine of forms of art Different ways of grasping the Idea as content - different forms and congurations First Form = symbolic Represents the mere search for portrayal than a capacity for true presentation Art begins when it rst tries to put the Idea into a representative form, to make it into something with artistic shapes, to make it the content of art The Idea is undetermined, obscure, abstract Meaning there is no CONCRETE Idea, the Idea has been determined abstractly, and so the meaning and shape will themselves remain abstract BUT the substantial Idea is imposed onto these natural objects as their meaning - so now, these objects are given the task of expressing this Idea as the objects absolute meaning and end in itself, and now come to be looked at as though they hold the Idea in them, they are interpreted of having this Idea Example: Eastern religions worship statues of gods as though they were the actual gods themselves What is crucial here is the idea that these natural objects (ART??) are themselves capable of representing a universal meaning or signicance EXAMPLE: the East - Eastern religions that ascribe an absolute meaning to even the most worthless of objects and their objects, because they represent their own twisted and deformed version of the Idea, are in themselves ugly in form. This is the symbolic form of art Second Form = classical (ancient greek?) An adequate representation / embodiment of the Idea in the shape appropriate to the Idea itself = the Idea can come into harmony with its form The concrete Idea is what is concretely spiritual, an inner self Otherwise, any image of a ower or nature would be classical in content and form SO, we must nd out what in nature belongs to the spiritual The human form is the only sensuous appearance appropriate to the spirit - it is only satised in this shape Because we can only represent the spiritual in a physical form, it is appropriate to produce physical representations Because humans are the ones that invented the shape of the concrete spirit, art has found this shape to be the only one appropriate for the spirit??? In it the human shape is puried, it must be divested of all the imperfections of the human form in its material form in order to adequately express its spiritual content

 But this means that the spirit must be particular and human, and not as absolute and eternal, since it this were so the spirit would not be able to be represented so adequately in the shape of humans The pinnacle of what illustration by art can achieve, if the art is defective, it is because of the limitations of ART itself ** VS for the symbolic form of art, if there is something defective in an art object, it is because the Idea is wrong, and so the form is wrong as well But for the classical form of art, if there is something defective, it is because of the limitations of the very practice of art itself. Third Form = romantic Solves the problem of the lack of reconciliation of the First Form It cancels out the unity that was found in the classical form because it found a higher Content = GOD The true element is the inwardness of self-consciousness Spiritual inwardness, knowledge of God in spirit and now in material form, is the medium and existence of truths content - NOT the BODY The subject matter of art is free concrete spirituality SO, art should not strive to represent the body, but the inwardness of emotion, spiritual feeling, depth of feeling The human body and shape can be accepted as a representation or medium, BECAUSE the meaning and essence is no longer in the body itself (as it is in the Symbolic Form), but in the heart and spirituality which can only be manifested in the external and material world SO, just like in symbolic art, there is the separation of Idea and form, but now with the perfected spirit and heart, and it can never have adequate union with the external, since it can only be achieved in the mind. Final part is the individualization of artistic beauty ______________________________________________________________________________ BENJAMIN Necessary thesis about the developmental tendencies of art as they are under the particular conditions of production - that is, mechanical reproducibility, film, photography. This thesis would do away with concepts such as genius and eternal mystery, which when applied uncontrolled would lead to art for Fascism Politics of art - what is it? The AURA Art reproducibility with photography changed the way that the public interacted with works of art (220), changes the way the public reacts to art (234), a new mass of participants created a new mode of participation (239) The less social significance an art form has, the greater the distinction between criticism and enjoyment (234-235) So what is conventional is enjoyed and what is new is criticized The creation of a simultaneous collective viewing experience

 One that is impossible for painting, but possible for film and architecture at all times Individual responses are predetermined by mass audience responses Thus the crisis of painting That came with the simultaneous viewing of paintings (with the museum?) Painting had a good chance when viewed by just one or a few people The masses cannot organize and control themselves in the reception of paintings as simultaneous collective experience Dada pursued the relentless destruction of the aura Which they branded as reproductions with the very means of production A reproduction is always missing the aura - the presence in time and space, its unique existence at the particular place and time in which it exists, including everything that it has accumulated in its existence like changes in physical condition, changes in ownership, etc. The film actor loses the aura of himself as well as his character, because his identification with the audience is really through the camera, and not only through the camera, but through a plurality of many separate performances to the camera, multiple fragments, not one piece like a stage actor, not a unique singular performance, the aura of which is sacrificed. (230) Because also the actor is constantly conscious of the fact that his image will be exhibited to the public, to consumers, his aura becomes substituted for the cult of personality. (231) Authenticity and the original Manual reproductions - that is, an identical reproduction of the work - is not the same as something that has been visually reproduced by mechanical processes e.g. Photography. Manual reproductions are considered forgeries, and mechanical reproductions are not. This is because mechanical reproductions are more independent, they are able to choose at will particular angles, sizes, close-ups, etc, things that may usually escape natural vision However, authenticity of the original is still jeopardized - historical testimony, authority of the object The original work of art can never be separated from its ritual function, from its original use value However, mechanical reproduction liberates for the first time the work of art from its dependence on ritual (224), and thus authenticity. When this happens, the work of art is freed from both ritual and the criteria of authenticity, and thus the function of art is no longer ritualistic but is based in POLITICS The process of shattering the traditional through reproduction It substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence Film The organization of perception is based on historical circumstances (222)

 The conditions of production today make it possible to show the social causes and transformations caused by changes in perception, if we understand changes in the medium of contemporary perception to be the decay of the aura. The contemporary decay of the aura is based on the social circumstance of the increasing significance of the masses Which is that desire of the masses to bring things closer spatially and humanly The optical unconscious (236-37) Reception in a state of distraction - film WHEN we look at visual images from prehistoric times, we see art value. However, back then, their perception of the image was based in ritual and cult value, and they saw it first and foremost as such, and not as art. (225) In the same way, art that is mechanically reproduced, say photography, a photograph of a work of art that is TO BE EXHIBITED, the function of that photograph is to exhibit the work of art and the photograph, that is the new function, our contemporary perception of the mechanical reproduction. The artistic function, which we are the most conscious of at the moment, may in the future because the secondary function, and the exhibition function will be placed at the forefront. (225) This new function is exemplified in photography and film. The question is NOT whether photography (or film) is an art, but whether the invention of photography transformed the ENTIRE NATURE of art (227). The logical result of Fascism is the introduction of aesthetics into political life A violation of the masses