Genius and Taste

[leafofgrass]

In Section 50 of Kant's third Critique, he joins together two faculties necessary to fine art. Genius, the capacity to create fine art, is defined as exemplary originality. Taste, the capacity to judge art as fine, is a form of judgment, pure judgment. Kant claims that it is possible to have genius without taste, or taste without genius, and,

Comments

[29usc151]

Hmmm... I have a lot to say on this but I should finish my take home exam first. A question though: are you implying that art before the "end of art" according to Danto (Warhol's Brillo Box) was more in touch with contemporary culture? Danto argues that contemporary/conceptual art is actually a democratizing force - now that art history is "over", any art is possible - the barrier between the "art world" and people is being torn down because art is no longer the province of an elite class of trained artists. Now, I know that most people feel out of touch with the institutional "art world", but

OK, I really need to get back to my work before I get carried away. Have you read "An Art of Their Own" in Danto's After the End of Art?

[leafofgrass]

Danto argues that contemporary/conceptual art is actually a democratizing force - now that art history is "over", any art is possible - the barrier between the "art world" and people is being torn down because art is no longer the province of an elite class of trained artists. Now, I know that most people feel out of touch with the institutional "art world", but Hmmm, But what?I'd be interested in your opinions on this one because one of my major tiffs with contemporary art is its overly intellectual nature or else its active avoidance of aesthetic value as elitist. This, as always, is only my impression, but the feeling of disconnectedness with contemporary art is something that i don't think will be overcome with time as with other trends. Impressionism, for example, was rejected by both the people and the elite back in the day, and yet today it remains one of the most popular art movements of all time. Do you really think performance art or Rroy Lichtenstein will ever achieve such a thing> If people lack comprehension of what

[29usc151]

Ok, IOU one lengthy discussion of contemporary, particularly conceptual, art.

I used be anti-conceptual art. Danto proved to be my "brillo box" of sorts.

I'll catch up with you on this after I finish my paper.

[leafofgrass]

Word! That sounds righteous.

I'm trying to be less closed minded about things like this, but it's hard. I like a lot of what Danto says, but I just don't like what it means in practice a lot of the time. We'll see... I shall await your insights! :-)

for starters from the new york times

[petitesoeur]

When asked about his earnest use of such a loaded and frequently mistrusted term as genius, the curator, Weston Naef, nodded assuredly. Head of the department since its inception, he had clearly anticipated the question and responded with a precise definition of the Getty's philosophy: "This collection was founded on the idea that there are certain very great makers of photographs who are able to repeat their superlative performance over and again, and for whom mastery of craft is essential." What distinguishes the craft of photography from that of painting, the tradition from which this standard clearly derives, is its particularly empirical nature. "The single most important element in the making of a photograph," Mr. Naef said, "is the choice of what to photograph." Mastery, then, hinges on two elements: technical expertise and the quality of the photographer's relationship to the visible world.

Flashes of Genius
By HOLLY MYERS
Published: May 9, 2004
New York Times

Re: for starters from the new york times

[leafofgrass]

Well, I'm not sure that I buy into the concept of genius either... as in that certain individuals are destined for aesthetic greatness. I would definitely be more inclined to agree with the curator in saying that learning how to see in a certain way is much more important that having a certain natural endowment.

Have I ever let you read/posted/sent you the essay I wrote on photography? I'm in RI now, so I don't have a copy handy, but if your interested I could send you one. There is something about photography that is very similar to painting, and I'm trying to pin down what that is. Given my Merleau-Ponty bent, I'm putting my money on the visual-bodily relations with the world... but I've been wrong before!

:-)

[apperception]

From what I've seen of contemporary painting (and it hasn't been that much), it seems like it no longer tries to bear the burden of human significance. I guess that translates into 'aesthetic ideas' in Kant. Since I'm an unrepentent modernist, I think this is ... bad!

Three cheers for Modernism!

[leafofgrass]

See here's my problem:
1) I like modernist things like art,
2) I dislike moderist philosophical ideas like a subject-object divide.

My ideals in on sense are extremely modernist, but in others are anti-modern. This is not to say post-modern, for I don't like them either. I am a man without affiliation, without a period! I suppose thqat's for the best, though, as it allows me to steal from everyone...

Re: Three cheers for Modernism!

[apperception]

What's wrong with the subject-object divide? I think it's great, I'm all for it.

Re: Three cheers for Modernism!

[leafofgrass]

It isn't necessarily that the idea of a subject or an object is itself bad, I just have difficulties with representational theories of consciousness/awareness. Kant's is the only modern position that makes any sense to me in this regard, but still, if the ordering of the mainfold of intuition is immanent to the mind, why is the world peceived to be apart from me? Sure, space is one of the forms of intuition, but does Kant really adequately explain the distance between myself and objects when the world is perceived "out-there" when it is only processed as the world it is "in-here"? A subject and object distinction can be useful, I suppose, but not one that is absolute--the distinction needs to be rethought.