Kant ve 'Disinterestedness' Sorunsalı

E. Kant ' a göre sanat içinde iki paradoks taşımaktadır .

1-Sanat kendi varolma amacını içinde taşır , kültür ise sosyal bir iletişimi mümkün kılan mental enerjiyi yönlendirir.
2-Doğanın bilincinde olmasak bile sanatta doğanın bir izi vardır .

Kant ,sanatın bir amaç uğruna üretildiğini , öte yandan amaçsız görünse bile bir amaca yöneldiğini , doğal olmayan bir yolla üretildiğini ama izleyenlere doğal göründüğünü söylemektedir.


Kant’ ın sanata ilişkin düşünceleri onun doğadaki güzelliğin nasıl değerlendirildiğiyle ve bu sürecin çeşitli çıkarımlarıyla ilişkilidir.

Kant ,güzelliğin gerçek değerlendirmesini dört ana özelliğe göre açıklamıştır .

1) Saflık - disinterested,
2) Evrensellil -universal,
3)Gereklilik - necessary,
4)Nedensellik - purposive without a purpose (Burnham).

Kant, rasyonellik ve estetik değerler arasında bir fark olduğunu söylemiştir.Bu farkı yaratan değer yargıları ,bilinen belli kavramlara bağlı değil, içsel olan özümsenmiş yargılarla ilişkilidir demiştir.

Bu nedenle gerçek bir güzellik değer yargısı saftır ,ve bilinen bir kavrama ait değildir.

Güzellik karşısında , onu taktir etmek ya da tarafsız kalmak arasında bocalamak ise Kant 'ın estetik kuramının en ilginç yönüdür .

Is it humanly possible to be completely intuitive, to experience something through sensation alone without applying past experiences or previous knowledge? Can an observer of “Starry Night” look at the swirls of blue, yellow, and black without attaching the sensation of movement in the night sky, imitated by the painting, to previous sensations and experiences of looking up at the stars? Is the judgment of art and beauty really free from social, political, and cultural factors? Other philosophers and thinkers like Nietzsche and Freud would argue that art is related to individual will; Marx would contend that all art, as cultural production, is political in some sense, and Expressionists, like Van Gogh, would disagree with disinterestedness by affirming that art is understood in terms of affective response (Burnham).
As a work of fine art, Kant would say that Van Gogh has succeeded in fulfilling the first paradox of purposefully creating something that has no purpose, or conceptualizing a non-concept in his painting of “Starry Night”. Abstract ideas of peace and tranquility are given form, although they are neither clearly nor conceptually defined. Van Gogh would be considered to possess “genius” or the “innate mental predisposition (ingenium) through which nature gives the rule to art”(174), because of his ability to capture an aesthetic concept and bring it as close as possible to a concrete form. Kant would argue that Van Gogh was guided by some visceral force to purposefully create “Starry Night” without committing it to a clear conceptual purpose.
“Starry Night” illustrates the second paradox of appearing natural despite the fact that it was obviously produced, because the painting is pleasing without bringing attention to the intentionality of its creation. In this second paradox, Kant is explaining the aversion that we feel toward art that seems forced or contrived. We appreciate fine art, he would argue, because it is so skillfully crafted that we initially conceive of it as if it were something that simply was. We can later appreciate the technique and style that the artist has used to create the work, but as an object of aesthetic pleasure, its beauty is best judged by its form, and not how that form was achieved.
Kant’s theory of fine art and beauty focuses exclusively on those works that cause pleasure and internal harmony or the “free play” of the mental faculties. His definition of art is seen as limited by the standards of today’s art scene, which includes works that are neither beautiful nor pleasing. However, regardless of Kant’s shortsightedness in excluding things such as personal interest from the evaluation of art, he succeeds in providing an in-depth analysis of the reasons why some works evoke our appreciation and spark our imagination while others do not. His ideas of purposiveness without a purpose and appearing natural although being produced help to explain why some works of art seem to please without communicating a specific message or conveying a direct idea. Although many works of art are clearly intended to convey a social or political message, like “Guernica” by Picasso, others, like Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” are simply pleasing to behold. Kant’s contribution to the field of aesthetic criticism is significant, regardless of the inability of his theory to encompass everything that we now define as “art”. As Freeland mentions, “Kant’s view of beauty had ramifications well into the twentieth century, as critics emphasized the aesthetic in urging audiences to appreciate new and challenging artists like Cezanne, Picasso, and Pollock”(15), and his focus on significant form continues to shape the way we view and justify art.