"And so we have Kant, who wasn't especially interested in any of the arts except shooting pool".
Than why he wrote so extensively on beauty without interest of what it is? Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Changing my mind about the way I look at art Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:03:55 GMT >It is entirely possible to have an aesthetics without any works of art to illustrate it. Aesthetics is the philosophy of beauty. I think it's easily recognized that beauty exists as an outlook, and what I'd call a belief, that can be applied to any experience whatsoever. Ditto for art. The two concepts, beauty and art, do not need to be conjoined or even interdependent beliefs. To say that art is inherently beautiful is true or false for only some art some of the time and only that which -- for many reasons -- metaphorically embodies a subjectively -- and always dissolving -- beautiful belief. (WC) And so we have Kant, who wasn't especially interested in any of the arts except shooting pool. Whatever value his notion of beauty has to the history of European philosophy, it is irrelevant to a discussion of art, except for those, like him, who aren't especially interested and experienced in looking at it. ____________________________________________________________ Shop & save on the supplements you want. Click now! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxZ1pGQrV3loME9X18hzgB3Rw kZR4D85uL7Voxa4Xjk9Q0Y584AiuU/
