 |
| Cloud busting |
Last night I was talking about Immanuel Kant and his Theory of Aesthetic Taste, the relation between aesthetic and moral experience and the idea that the 'beautiful' is a symbol of the morally good. We call beautiful objects of nature or art by names 'which seem to be based on moral judgement. We call buildings or trees majestic... even colours are called innocent, modest, tender, because they arouse sensations which contain something analogous to the consciousness of a state of mind caused by moral judgement.' The harmony between the free imagination and the order-imposing understanding corresponds to the conformity of the free will to its own legislation. According to Kant, then, pleasure is beautiful, displeasure ugly and therein lies the hierarchy of aesthetic judgement unless we rescue it through language - and of course, art. Which begs the question, is a Jackson Pollock painting beautiful art when viewed next to a Rothko (say)? Another question for another day, as this day is just beginning and there is tea to be drunk. The tea drinking thinkers can switch off while listening to the 'ugly' Barber's Adagio for Strings, I even love the ambient sound of the audience anticipating this - think with all the senses, you know it makes sense:
