Nancun Yu
PR. Kyle Grady
PHIL 330: Aesthetics
23th, Sept. 2014
2.2Reflection Paper (L)
As I had mentioned in the previous short reflection paper, I had
objected both claim that beauty is a real property of objects and beauty is “in
the eye of the beholder.” I made my claim that there must be a form of beauty according to the fact that people
always tend to argue or discuss what they think are beautiful. From my
understanding, people can only discuss if both sides share basic similar understanding
on the subject they discuss. In example, people who think sunshine is orange
can hardly discuss the use of sunshine with other who think the sunshine is
red. The basic understanding is required as the bridges connect words’ meaning.
Thus, its appeal can only be logical if there is a “form of beauty” that people
shared understanding of. However, after reading several essays I found Kant’s
theory in his Critiques of Judgments have a better explanation that perfect fit
with my view. (Even know I might
misunderstand him)
Kant’s
system perfectly answers several question that what make people feel beautiful
and how people determines one work is beautiful or not. Instead of saying there
is a form of “Beauty”. Kant argues that there is subjective universality when
people make their judgment. And instead of saying beauty is “In the eye of the
beholders” Kant argues beauty is a matter of taste, it is nothing else than a
subjective judgment people make based on the pleasure and the displeasure
people (the subject) immediate feels that are affected by the artworks.
In my opinion, if we admit beauty
serve as a property of an object, people should eventually come to an equal
conclusion, what appeal to be not correct. Moreover, if we think about the
process of creating an artwork. Although artists express their emotions into a
physical subject, however, emotional expression is not the process, assign “beautiful”
into the artworks. I would rather say that the artist hardly created beautiful
since they usually tend to be objectively interested about their own work. The
quality of “beautiful” can only be judged by the viewer base on their immediate
reaction.
In Kant’s system, even know
him describe the aesthetic judgment as subjective judgment, Kant adds specific
promises that people can only make judgments on their dis-interest subject.
Moreover, people should not involve any emotion or background information other
than the work itself appeals. It seems little odd that why people want to make
judgments toward an object they are not interested about. It relevantly reflects many situations when
people misused the term beautiful. For
example, people tend to think the natural world is beautiful without making
judgment. There is a difference between natural beauty and artificial beauty.
Although it seems to recommend a fact that the natural world contains a
property of beautiful. However, the “good” people receive from the natural
world are more of a moderately good. Many things in the natural world are
“good” by being useful, i.e. woods, sun (heat), ground (farmland), etc. What I
am saying is not natural world are not appreciable and cannot be beautiful. Granted,
that natural world can affect human emotions in many ways. However, there are
many reasons why people can easily miscalled natural world beautiful without
going through the process of judgment. One the one hand, people tend to live closer
to the natural environment (what I mean here is not the forest kind of total
natural theme but sunshine, cloud, sky). On the other hand, believe on natural
world being “Beautiful” had been highly built in with our common values. Therefore,
when a theme become common it can easily causing ignorance.
In addition,
Kant’s system have hand over a great power to the viewer by let them making
their own judgment. It so allows people called anything to be art by saying
they are pleased what can hardly prove. In this light, Kant proposed subjective
universality. By that, Kant had not only complete the whole system but also
protected the radical strange work become art. The subjective universality
allows people to share their different teste and by share it will automatic
average the contemporary view and reflect it back to the universality believes.
Nancun Yu
PR. Kyle Grady
PHIL 330: Aesthetics
08th, Oct. 2014
3.0Reflection Paper (SL)
In previous papers I had classifies that beauty is simply a subjective
judgment people make based upon their first reactions. Granted by Hume, Kant had
also described the Aesthetic judgments as a test. However, just like Mothersill
said, if we accept the regular consequence of taste, (that can only be individually
judged) the art become meaningless that does not worth to have any discussion. Because
without a “standard”, a prior guiding principles, the discussion about beauty
will totally about individual taste, the question will shift to self-preference
but left none aesthetically knowledge. Furthermore, if “taste” are totally independently
without any concept, the argument about taste can kept going forever about both
side convincing each other. Overall, we can make a conclusion that if there are
no prior – concept people should not spend time practice discussion beautiful.
Identically, in reality, people discussing beautiful things and sharing their
taste, therefore, it seems there are already some prior “quality” that people had
already admitted.
Albeit, Hume stated that there are neither good taste nor bad taste about
any particular taste if it only stand for itself. He also claimed that there
cannot be any standard or prior quality because aesthetic judgment can only be
subjective. Granted that taste is only a personal matter, but being subjective does
not deny the possibility for people to have a compromised agreement on taste.
My idea about having a “good taste” does not mean to have a measurement that
separate text into different categories (good or bad). It means to learn what is
the majority accepted beautiful. It mendaciously fulfil Kant’s claimed
subjective universality. However, in difference with “taste”, the subjective
judgment people made. To learn the “good taste” do not involve in the process
of making aesthetic judgments, because it does not distinctly any personal
taste at all. It is simply a knowledge people should be learning, but does not
have to pay attention when they making their own judgment about taste. From my sight,
that is how taste actually functions. There definitely are some pre-existed universality
agreements people had already subconsciously learned.
Many people might like to ask the question that if there truly is such
universal agreement, why people still easily run into disagreement when they discuss
their taste with one another. Granted that the unanimity of taste is real, But,
as Hume wrote in his essay that people usually misunderstand because the nature
of language. It is likely that people end up misunderstand each other and that
become the distinction when we communicate. By Kant, in chapter XIII of his “critique
of judgment” that “judgments so influenced can either lay no claim at all to any
universally valid delight.” Thus, it is understandable that people who got
influenced so much by their taste’s substance emotions and denied their
agreement on society’s “good taste”. For me, the problem of good people cannot
control their emotion have no intention to question whether there is a knowledge
about taste. Is just like the fact that people might learned some fact, but
they might not remember and practice it all the time. On the other hand it is
also allowed that people can always critique the pre-learned knowledge, it also
applies to the knowledge about “good taste”.
It is also likely that people would want to ask why they should spend time
study the majority people’s taste. There are many reasons for that, first of
all, the individuals can use the “good taste” as a fiduciary object to identify
how difference is their own taste in comparison with what the society been most
accepted. And by aware their own difference it helps each individual when they critique
their own taste and others. Secondly, the society standard of taste created a
universal similarity in taste that allow people to discuss what they think is
beautiful. It allows people other than artist to involve more with art. Thirdly,
to learn the “good taste” help people live better. It is a common knowledge that
human beings must live in a very close community to survive. Thus, there are
many common agreement people must agree to in order to keep the community
system running. Identically disagreement can usually end up with violence,
whereas to have a “good taste” decrease the chance to have a disagreement with
others. Last, by admitted to the standard called “good taste”. The society has partially
declared a guideline that prevents artist create an extreme strange art work.
Just like Socrates had mentioned, art can be dangerous. Thus, by present a society
standard, it limited the path of the artist and keeps art in a safe position.
No comments:
Post a Comment