Free beauty resides in something with no concept of how the thing ought to be made,or what purpose it ought to serve-flowers, Grecian arabesques or music without words. Adherent beauty resides in things which come with a particular purpose and concept-people,horses (or cars), buildings. Free beauty results in a pure judgement of taste, adherent beauty results in a judgement of taste which involves reason. Kant goes on to say that taste gains by the combination of aesthetic with intellectual satsfaction,at which point it is possible to invent rules for the unification of taste and reason,which are not rules for taste alone. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with abstract or representation or naming. KAte Sullivan In a message dated 3/1/10 8:40:53 AM, [email protected] writes:
> . Free and adherent, formal, abstract vs. representational, are notions > I have long rejected, both as an artist and as a struggling thinker. My > essential slogan is that "anything can be perceived as something else" > > That means that all formal abstract shapes, designs, etc., do evoke some > associative, continuous metaphorical "naming". Thus an artificial > distinction between adherent and free beauties strikes me as irrelevant. > > I believe we are forced by nature to identify everything as if everything > had a name, a representation. Conversely, everything has a formal construct > (which we invent). If we see something that seems only formal, we > immediately want to say "it looks like...." Or if we see a human figure, we > qualify it formally. > > Free beauty is the same as adherent beauty; one instantly evokes or > serves and becomes indistinguishable from the other. > > I'm sure it's not as simple in Kant as it is to me. I will appreciate > your explanation.
