Was Kant Racist?

     While reading Immanuel Kant's Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime, I also noticed something interesting in Section Four of the book, which is entitled “Of National Characteristics, so far as They Depend upon the Distinct Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime.” At one point, Kant describes a situation in which a white man accused a black man of “haughty treatment toward his wives” (Kant 113). The black man replied, “‘You whites are indeed fools, for first you make great concessions to your wives, and afterward you complain when they drive you mad’” (Kant 113). I believe that Kant’s response to this situation is a bit racist because he states, “And it might be that there were something in this which perhaps deserved to be considered; but in short, this fellow was quite black from head to foot, a clear proof that what he said was stupid” (Kant 113). As with my last post, I am curious if anyone agrees or disagrees with me when I say that Kant's comment was racist.
 

Was Kant Sexist?

     For my book review, I read Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime by Immanuel Kant. In Section Three of the book, entitled "Of the Distinction of the Beautiful and Sublime in the Interrelations of the Two Sexes," I noticed something interesting. At one point, Kant stated:
          A woman who has a head full of Greek, like Mme Dacier, or carries on fundamental controversies
          about mechanics, like the Marquise de Châtelet, might as well even have a beard; for perhaps that
          would express more obviously the mien of profundity for which she strives. (Kant 78)

In my opinion, this remark comes off as a bit sexist. However, I am curious to see if anyone agrees or disagrees with me.
     

Who Should We Trust?

Question:  Wouldn’t it be more accurate to ask someone who actually lives in a culture of “primitive” art what their concept of art is, rather than trusting the theory of someone who just studies the culture?

After our discussions in class, I have realized that this question is not very relevant, because the issue at hand is not who to trust. It is whether or not there are multiple concepts of art. Although I agree with Denis Dutton for the most part, I also believe that Larry Shiner makes some good points. Overall, however, I believe that these "primitive" art objects are just examples of craft, which is a type of art. Although the functionality of these objects may be the most important factor for their creators, they are still crafts, and therefore works of art that are aesthetically pleasing and share certain criteria needed for something to be considered art.

Designs With Functions

Question:   If certain objects were created not to be considered art, but for the sole purpose of their functions, why would the creator bother to make beautiful designs on the objects?


After our discussions in class, I have realized that in the case of some works, such as cave paintings, the designs are crucial to the functioning of the work. For example, if the function of a cave painting was to tell a story, detailed designs would be necessary to adequately achieve that function. The more detailed and beautiful the designs, the better the story will be.

When I came up with my question, I wasn't thinking about works like cave paintings. I was thinking about something like a vase or bowl to hold things, such as water. I was wondering why the creators would bother to put designs on these things if their only function was to carry or hold something. However, I suppose the designs on these objects could be symbolic and therefore have a separate function themselves. While coming up with my question, I no doubt should have considered how it would apply to a variety of objects, such as cave paintings.

Why Are We Such Snobs?

Question:   Lessing’s essay discussed how most people would take an inferior sketch by Picasso over a superior landscape painting by an unknown artist. Why do we do this?


     After our discussions in class, I have concluded that we perform this snobbery for multiple reasons. One reason we might do this is for financial reasons. Obviously, the sketch by Picasso would be worth a lot more money than the landscape painting by an unknown artist if we were to try and sell it. This is unfortunate, but it is the way our society works. People will pay for big names. 
     
     Another reason people might prefer the Picasso sketch is for that reason exactly:  they prefer the big name. They want to own something made by such a famous artist, no matter how aesthetically pleasing it may be. They would probably pay big money to even have one of Picasso's socks, or some other random object that he owned. 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Autographed-Stihl-MS-660-Chainsaw-by-Sarah-Palin-/110981910198?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19d7098eb6

^  For example, the link above leads to an ad on eBay, in which a chainsaw autographed by Sarah Palin is being sold for $570, which is clearly a ridiculous amount of money to pay for a signature on a chainsaw.

 

Can a Style of Art Be Forged?

Question: Is the act of painting in the style of another artist but with different content matter considered forgery?

After our discussions in class, I have concluded that the act of painting in the style of another artist but with different content matter is not considered forgery. The only way this would be considered forgery is if the content matter was the same. However, this act of painting in the style of another artist can be seen more as a tribute to the artist, just like a tribute band honors a famous band by playing their music. Painting in another artist's style just means that the artist appreciates the style, and finds it very aesthetically pleasing. For example, many people make pop art even though Andy Warhol was the creator of this type of art. 


http://www.popartists.com/

^ Above is a link to a website that displays pop art of many pop artists, including Andy Warhol.

Is Imagination Voluntary or Involuntary?

     Question:  In reference to my first question, is imagination a voluntary or involuntary process?

      In class, we discussed how imagination needs to be intentional, therefore meaning that dreaming is not imaginative. However, I'm not so convinced. I am still undecided on whether or not dreaming is imaginative, but I don't believe that intention is always needed for imagination to occur. I feel as though using one's imagination is not always a voluntary process. For example, people daydream all the time without even realizing it. Does this mean their thoughts while daydreaming are not imaginative? I don't think this is the case.   I don't think we always use our imaginations with the intention of being imaginative. Sometimes we just automatically imagine things, without thinking about it. I am not denying that imagination is voluntary, I am just stating my belief that sometimes, imagination is involuntary and automatic.