{"title":"卡维尔和迪夫对“这就是艺术”的审美判断","authors":"Pioter Shmugliakov, Alma Itzhaky","doi":"10.1080/20004214.2021.1954417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Stanley Cavell and Thierry de Duve have independently proposed that judgments of the type “This is art” are aesthetic judgments, to be understood along the lines of Kant’s analysis of the judgment of taste. Contrary to the common philosophical strategy of pursuing a definition of art that could be applied to controversial cases, Cavell and de Duve reinterpret the art-judgment as a reflective aesthetic judgment that claims universal agreement on non-conceptual grounds. Accordingly, judging something to be a genuine artwork is not a preliminary step but an inherent part of our aesthetic engagement with art. Furthermore, the transcendental grounding of such judgments implies that some universal and necessary conditions of human experience are revealed in the domain of art. Yet, our analysis shows that the two positions disagree on (1) the role of distinct artistic media as being essential (Cavell) or inessential (de Duve) to the art-judgment; and (2) the relation of criticism to judgment in the experience of art. Both points are related to the philosophers’ differences regarding the material aspect of artistic experience, as well as to some further moments in their respective appropriations of Kantian aesthetics. We propose that combining the complementing insights of the two positions contributes to defining the common framework of our experience of art in its characteristic contemporary diversity. Specifically, it serves to negotiate the still much relevant tension between the high modernist position represented by Cavell and the post-conceptual position represented by de Duve.","PeriodicalId":43229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Aesthetics & Culture","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20004214.2021.1954417","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The aesthetic judgment “This is art” in Stanley Cavell and Thierry de Duve\",\"authors\":\"Pioter Shmugliakov, Alma Itzhaky\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20004214.2021.1954417\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Stanley Cavell and Thierry de Duve have independently proposed that judgments of the type “This is art” are aesthetic judgments, to be understood along the lines of Kant’s analysis of the judgment of taste. Contrary to the common philosophical strategy of pursuing a definition of art that could be applied to controversial cases, Cavell and de Duve reinterpret the art-judgment as a reflective aesthetic judgment that claims universal agreement on non-conceptual grounds. Accordingly, judging something to be a genuine artwork is not a preliminary step but an inherent part of our aesthetic engagement with art. Furthermore, the transcendental grounding of such judgments implies that some universal and necessary conditions of human experience are revealed in the domain of art. Yet, our analysis shows that the two positions disagree on (1) the role of distinct artistic media as being essential (Cavell) or inessential (de Duve) to the art-judgment; and (2) the relation of criticism to judgment in the experience of art. Both points are related to the philosophers’ differences regarding the material aspect of artistic experience, as well as to some further moments in their respective appropriations of Kantian aesthetics. We propose that combining the complementing insights of the two positions contributes to defining the common framework of our experience of art in its characteristic contemporary diversity. Specifically, it serves to negotiate the still much relevant tension between the high modernist position represented by Cavell and the post-conceptual position represented by de Duve.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Aesthetics & Culture\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20004214.2021.1954417\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Aesthetics & Culture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20004214.2021.1954417\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CULTURAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Aesthetics & Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20004214.2021.1954417","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
卡维尔(Stanley Cavell)和迪夫(Thierry de Duve)各自独立地提出,“这是艺术”类型的判断是美学判断,可以按照康德对品味判断的分析来理解。与追求可以应用于有争议案例的艺术定义的常见哲学策略相反,卡维尔和德迪夫将艺术判断重新解释为一种反思性的审美判断,声称在非概念性的基础上达成普遍一致。因此,判断一个东西是真正的艺术品不是一个初步步骤,而是我们与艺术美学接触的固有部分。此外,这种判断的先验基础意味着在艺术领域揭示了人类经验的一些普遍和必要的条件。然而,我们的分析表明,这两种立场在以下方面存在分歧:(1)不同的艺术媒介在艺术判断中是必不可少的(卡维尔)还是非必不可少的(德迪夫);(二)艺术体验中批评与判断的关系。这两点都与哲学家们在艺术经验的物质方面的分歧有关,也与他们各自对康德美学的进一步挪用有关。我们认为,将这两种观点的互补见解结合起来,有助于在当代多样性中定义我们对艺术体验的共同框架。具体来说,它有助于协调以卡维尔为代表的高度现代主义立场和以德·迪夫为代表的后概念立场之间仍然密切相关的紧张关系。
The aesthetic judgment “This is art” in Stanley Cavell and Thierry de Duve
ABSTRACT Stanley Cavell and Thierry de Duve have independently proposed that judgments of the type “This is art” are aesthetic judgments, to be understood along the lines of Kant’s analysis of the judgment of taste. Contrary to the common philosophical strategy of pursuing a definition of art that could be applied to controversial cases, Cavell and de Duve reinterpret the art-judgment as a reflective aesthetic judgment that claims universal agreement on non-conceptual grounds. Accordingly, judging something to be a genuine artwork is not a preliminary step but an inherent part of our aesthetic engagement with art. Furthermore, the transcendental grounding of such judgments implies that some universal and necessary conditions of human experience are revealed in the domain of art. Yet, our analysis shows that the two positions disagree on (1) the role of distinct artistic media as being essential (Cavell) or inessential (de Duve) to the art-judgment; and (2) the relation of criticism to judgment in the experience of art. Both points are related to the philosophers’ differences regarding the material aspect of artistic experience, as well as to some further moments in their respective appropriations of Kantian aesthetics. We propose that combining the complementing insights of the two positions contributes to defining the common framework of our experience of art in its characteristic contemporary diversity. Specifically, it serves to negotiate the still much relevant tension between the high modernist position represented by Cavell and the post-conceptual position represented by de Duve.