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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Pioter Shmugliakov, Alma Itzhaky
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