The aesthetic judgment “This is art” in Stanley Cavell and Thierry de Duve
Stanley Cavell and Thierry de Duve have independently proposed that judgments of the type “This is art” are aesthetic judgments, to be understood along the lines of Kant’s analysis of the judgment of taste. Contrary to the common philosophical strategy of pursuing a definition of art that could be a...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2021-01-01
|
Series: | Journal of Aesthetics & Culture |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20004214.2021.1954417 |
id |
doaj-33c0db726f6347bc84907351a98a929b |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-33c0db726f6347bc84907351a98a929b2021-08-09T15:50:07ZengTaylor & Francis GroupJournal of Aesthetics & Culture2000-42142021-01-0113110.1080/20004214.2021.19544171954417The aesthetic judgment “This is art” in Stanley Cavell and Thierry de DuvePioter Shmugliakov0Alma Itzhaky1Institut Für Philosophie, Freie Universität BerlinSchool of Philosophy, Linguistics and Science Studies, Tel Aviv UniversityStanley Cavell and Thierry de Duve have independently proposed that judgments of the type “This is art” are aesthetic judgments, to be understood along the lines of Kant’s analysis of the judgment of taste. Contrary to the common philosophical strategy of pursuing a definition of art that could be applied to controversial cases, Cavell and de Duve reinterpret the art-judgment as a reflective aesthetic judgment that claims universal agreement on non-conceptual grounds. Accordingly, judging something to be a genuine artwork is not a preliminary step but an inherent part of our aesthetic engagement with art. Furthermore, the transcendental grounding of such judgments implies that some universal and necessary conditions of human experience are revealed in the domain of art. Yet, our analysis shows that the two positions disagree on (1) the role of distinct artistic media as being essential (Cavell) or inessential (de Duve) to the art-judgment; and (2) the relation of criticism to judgment in the experience of art. Both points are related to the philosophers’ differences regarding the material aspect of artistic experience, as well as to some further moments in their respective appropriations of Kantian aesthetics. We propose that combining the complementing insights of the two positions contributes to defining the common framework of our experience of art in its characteristic contemporary diversity. Specifically, it serves to negotiate the still much relevant tension between the high modernist position represented by Cavell and the post-conceptual position represented by de Duve.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20004214.2021.1954417stanley cavellthierry de duveaesthetic judgmentmodernismart criticismimmanuel kant |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Pioter Shmugliakov Alma Itzhaky |
spellingShingle |
Pioter Shmugliakov Alma Itzhaky The aesthetic judgment “This is art” in Stanley Cavell and Thierry de Duve Journal of Aesthetics & Culture stanley cavell thierry de duve aesthetic judgment modernism art criticism immanuel kant |
author_facet |
Pioter Shmugliakov Alma Itzhaky |
author_sort |
Pioter Shmugliakov |
title |
The aesthetic judgment “This is art” in Stanley Cavell and Thierry de Duve |
title_short |
The aesthetic judgment “This is art” in Stanley Cavell and Thierry de Duve |
title_full |
The aesthetic judgment “This is art” in Stanley Cavell and Thierry de Duve |
title_fullStr |
The aesthetic judgment “This is art” in Stanley Cavell and Thierry de Duve |
title_full_unstemmed |
The aesthetic judgment “This is art” in Stanley Cavell and Thierry de Duve |
title_sort |
aesthetic judgment “this is art” in stanley cavell and thierry de duve |
publisher |
Taylor & Francis Group |
series |
Journal of Aesthetics & Culture |
issn |
2000-4214 |
publishDate |
2021-01-01 |
description |
Stanley Cavell and Thierry de Duve have independently proposed that judgments of the type “This is art” are aesthetic judgments, to be understood along the lines of Kant’s analysis of the judgment of taste. Contrary to the common philosophical strategy of pursuing a definition of art that could be applied to controversial cases, Cavell and de Duve reinterpret the art-judgment as a reflective aesthetic judgment that claims universal agreement on non-conceptual grounds. Accordingly, judging something to be a genuine artwork is not a preliminary step but an inherent part of our aesthetic engagement with art. Furthermore, the transcendental grounding of such judgments implies that some universal and necessary conditions of human experience are revealed in the domain of art. Yet, our analysis shows that the two positions disagree on (1) the role of distinct artistic media as being essential (Cavell) or inessential (de Duve) to the art-judgment; and (2) the relation of criticism to judgment in the experience of art. Both points are related to the philosophers’ differences regarding the material aspect of artistic experience, as well as to some further moments in their respective appropriations of Kantian aesthetics. We propose that combining the complementing insights of the two positions contributes to defining the common framework of our experience of art in its characteristic contemporary diversity. Specifically, it serves to negotiate the still much relevant tension between the high modernist position represented by Cavell and the post-conceptual position represented by de Duve. |
topic |
stanley cavell thierry de duve aesthetic judgment modernism art criticism immanuel kant |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20004214.2021.1954417 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT piotershmugliakov theaestheticjudgmentthisisartinstanleycavellandthierrydeduve AT almaitzhaky theaestheticjudgmentthisisartinstanleycavellandthierrydeduve AT piotershmugliakov aestheticjudgmentthisisartinstanleycavellandthierrydeduve AT almaitzhaky aestheticjudgmentthisisartinstanleycavellandthierrydeduve |
_version_ |
1721213741193756672 |