Is Michelangelo

’s Pieta A Better Work Of Art Than Duchamp’s Fountain Would Kant And Hume Agree??? Essay, Research Paper


When one looks at two


very different works of art like Michelangelo?s Pieta and Duchamp?s Fountain


the question is often posed as to which is the better piece of art. The


question is also asked at times, what verdict would two different philosophers


give to the works? Would Kant and Hume for example agree on whether or not the


two pieces were both good works, or would they say that neither piece was very


good, or would they say that one work was better then the other. Most critics


who wanted to play it safe would most likely jump to the position that


Michelangelos?s Pieta was a example of ?good? art while Duchamp?s Fountain was


an example of ?bad? art. For the simple reasons that it is not a good idea to


call any piece of art by Michelangelo bad if you want to have any sort of


career as an art critic. The general consensus of the art world is that


Michelangelo was a master, and it would be folly for anyone to say otherwise.


Duchamp?s work on the other hand leaves more room for the critic to pronounce


that it is either good or bad. This could be due in part to the fact that


Duchamp?s work can be considered controversial. People and or critics are more


likely to jump onto either of the bandwagons when there is no universal


acceptance of an piece, or of an artist. In a way it is almost impossible to


compare the two different pieces due to the fact that the relationship between


Michelangelo and his audience is much different then the relationship that


Duchamp has with his audience. Kant and Hume I believe


would both concur with this, but they would also have their own opinions of


whether each piece of art was good on its own. Hume and Kant both seem to agree


that Aesthetic judgements are logically dependant, in that they are dependant


on the sensations of pleasure and liking, but they are also removed from these


feelings and transcend judgements of pleasure and liking.? This may seem to contradict itself, but at


the same time it does not. Most peoples decisions on how they feel about a work


depend on what type of a response they have to that work, the response is based


on their judgements of pleasure and liking. However a learned critics will


often come to the same conclusion about an object in that there is a universal


judgement of what is beautiful and what is not, that all learned and educated


critics will come too. Of the two of them Hume


would be considered more the subjectivist then Kant. Hume states that there is


a different internal fabric in his mind then there is in the mind of the


critic. This leads him to beg the question ?Why ought I give precedence to the


judgement of the critic? I am not the critic and his responses are not my


responses, what sense is there that his pronouncements have a stronger


influence then mine?? He states that the sentiments of men can often differ


with regard to beauty and deformity of all kinds. This is most definitely the


argument of most subjectivists. The belief that the idea of beauty is different


in every individual and that taste in general is relative to the party viewing


the work. So this evidence could almost say that Hume?s viewpoint on whether or


not the one work is better then the other is almost irrelevant to his


philosophies. He believes that the idea of beauty is in the eye of the


beholder, and who is to say that this viewpoint is incorrect? When people say


that beauty is in the eye of the beholder

about a man who loves a woman


regardless of what she looks like he is considered noble and to be


admired.? Where as when that same


philosophy is applied to the judgement of art, many consider that it is a cop


out for people who don?t want to make a decision on what is good and what is


bad art.? Hume states that ?Beauty is no


quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind, which contemplates


them; and each mind perceives a different beauty. One person may even perceive


deformity, where another is sensible of beauty, and every individual ought to


acquiesce in his own sentiment, without pretending to regulate those of


others.? Kant on the other hand


would be considered more the objectivist of the two of them. Kant argues that


judgements of beauty itself are synthetic. He would argue that the bare


perceptual form of the object and its interaction with our basic universally


shared mental powers of perception and understanding, are what the decision of


whether or not an object is aesthetically pleasing. Every good critic will come


to the same basic conclusion as to whether or not a work is good since all good


and learned critics will come to the same universal standpoint on what is good


art. Kant states that this universal standpoint can be reached through freeing


our awareness of the object from desire and practical concern, what he calls a


?disinterestedness? of the object. That way we can judge the merits of the work


based on its form and concept, not getting tied up in the conventions of the


day or our first response. Kant believes that there are two judgements


implicitly when a object is pronounced beautiful. A) A judgement of the object,


and B) a judgement of the pleasure given by the object, that it is valid for


everyone. Kant also advances a metaphysical interpretation of an aesthetic


experience. He states that the experience should make us conscious of our


connection that we share with the world, and the connection that we share with


each other, the connection which lies beyond the empirical world. Kant also


argues that the frame of mind that is involved in the judgement of aesthetic


beauty and the appreciation thereof is analogous to the state of mind that is


involved in the awareness of moral obligation. Beauty therefore seems to hold a


moral significance for Kant. He calls it the symbol of the good. I will not


however try to state what Kant?s view on whether or not one of the


above-mentioned works is better then the other. It is possible to look at his


philosophy and try to draw inferences to what he might have thought of the


work, however it is also very possible to miss something in the work that he


may have seen and admired. Duchamp?s work obviously holds social meaning that


is relevant to our time that Kant would not have even understood just due to


the fact that he would not have even recognised what the subject of the work


was, or is. This I believe would have greatly affected his or any critics? view


of the work. Most of the controversy over the work is over its subject. Some


look at the work and say that it is tasteless due to its very subject matter.


However this decision is not entirely based on an evaluation that is


?disinterested? rather it is very culturally loaded. This leads the evaluation


to be considered by some, even by Kant himself to be flawed in that it is not a


?disinterested? opinion. The question as to whether or not those works are good


should be left in the mind of the viewer in my opinion.

Сохранить в соц. сетях:
Обсуждение:
comments powered by Disqus

Название реферата: Is Michelangelo

Слов:1362
Символов:8323
Размер:16.26 Кб.