’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
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.