In the preceding chapters we have been introduced to four classical theories of art. In spite of their mutual differences these theories nevertheless have one characteristic in common. They tell us how we should consider or define art. Time and again they assume that the own point of view reveals the essence of art in an unproblematic way. The theories give us a decisive answer to the fundamental question “what, actually, is art?”. This also explains why they are so exclusive. They identify art respectively with “imitation”, “expression”, and “form” and/or “a synthesis of form and expression”, without leaving any room for nuance or ambiguity. The theories previously discussed can also be considered as providing us with a well-defined norm art should meet. These theories thus have very specific normative implications. We have already seen how each of these theories has served certain artists as a guideline in their artistic quest, but their normative implications, however, reach much further. On close inspection, these theories offer us different criteria for judging individual works of art. In this respect, they are relevant for the critical appraisal of artworks, especially within art criticism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Further Reading
Good and concise introductions to Kant are:
Stephan Körner, Kant, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1982 (Originally published by Penguin Books in 1955).
Karl Ameriks, Interpreting Kant's critiques, Oxford: Clarendon; Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
For a translation of Kant's third critique, see:
Immanuel Kant, Critique of judgement, translated and introduced by John Henry Bernard, New York/London, Haffner Press, 1951.
Recent edition of this translation: Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2005.
For another quite recent and good translation, see;
Immanuel Kant, Critique of the power of judgement, translated/edited by Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
For a translations of Kant's first two critiques:
Immanuel kant, Critique of pure reason, translated/edited by Paul Guyer and Alan W. Wood, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Immanuel Kant, Practical philosophy, translated/edited by Mary Gregor, with an introduction by Alan W. Wood, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. (Includes the Groundwork, Critique of practical reason and “What is Enlightenment?”)
On Kant's third critique and the unique introduction to the third critique by Kant:
Immanuel Kant, First introduction to the critique of judgment, translated by James Haden, Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965.
Sarah L. Gibbons, Kant's theory of imagination, Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Douglas Burnham, An introduction to Kant's critique of judgement, Edinburgh: Edinburgh Press, 2000.
Henry E. Allison, Kant's theory of taste: a reading of the “Critique of aesthetic judgement”, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
John R. Goodreau, The role of the sublime in Kant's moral metaphysics, Washington, DC: Council in Values and Philosophy, 1998.
Specific on Kant and aesthetics:
Theodore E. Uehling, The notion of form in Kant's critique of aesthetic judgement, The Hague: Mouton, 1971.
Donald W. Crawford, Kant's aesthetic theory, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, 1974.
Eva Schaper, Studies in Kant's aesthetics, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1979.
Ted Cohen and Paul Guyer (eds.), Essays in Kant's aesthetics, Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1982.
Kenneth F. Rogerson, Kant's aesthetics: the role of forms and expression, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986.
Mary A. McCloskey, Kant's aesthetics, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press; Albany, NY: State of New York Press, 1987.
Thierry de Duve, Kant after Duchamp, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.
Salim Kemal, Kant's aesthetic theory: an introduction, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997 (Originally published by Macmillan Press in 1952).
Paul Guyer, Kant and the claims of taste, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997 (Originally published by Harvard University Press, 1979.
Herman Parret (ed.), Kant's Ästhetik/Kant's aesthetics/L'esthétique de Kant, Berlin: in Walter De Gruyter, 1998.
Rodolphe Gasché, The idea of form: rethinking Kant's aesthetics, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003.
On Kant and the sublime:
Paul Crowther, The Kantian sublime: from morality to art, Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: in Oxford University Press, 1989.
Jean François Lyotard, Lessons on the analytic of the sublime: Kant's critique of judgement, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994.
For objections to Kant see:
Martin Heidegger, Kant and the problem of metaphysics, translated by James S. Churchill and a foreword by Thomas Langan, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1962.
Nelson Goodman, Languages of art, Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968 (especially p.242 and further).
Richard Wollheim, Art and its objects, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1980 (especially section 22 and 23).
Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste, translated by Richard Nice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2009). Aesthetic Judgment: The Legacy of Kant. In: Thinking Art. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5638-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5638-3_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-5637-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-5638-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)