Is Michelangelo’s Pieta A Better Work Of Art Than Duchamp’s Fountain Would Kant And Hume Agree When one looks at two very different works of art like Michelangelo Pieta and Duchamps 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 Michelange loss Pieta was a example of good art while Duchamps 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. Duchamps 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 Duchamps 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.
A Comparison of Formal and Avant-Garde Artwork Modern art is a unique creation all it’s own, and since it’s beginnings there have been two very distinct groups present. They are the Formalists and the Avant-Garde. The Formalist group believes in the literal representation of the art work. They value the form used, whether it be how the colors are stressed or the techniques used, over the idea ...
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 logic all 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 subjectivism 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 subjectivisms.
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 Humes 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 dont 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.
How Guns Work gun is a weapon that uses the force of an explosive propellant to project a missile. Guns or firearms are classified by the diameter of the barrel opening. This is known as the calibre of the gun. Anything with a calibre up to and including. 60 calibre (0. 6 inches) is known as a firearm. The precise origin of the gun is unknown, although they were in use by the early 14 th century ...
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 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. Duchamps 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.
Essay One: Immanuel Kant was a from Germany in the eighteenth century. He believed that the only test of whether a decision is right or wrong is whether it could be applied to everyone. Would it be all right for everyone to do what you are doing? If not, your decision is wrong. It would be wrong, for example, to make a promise with the intention of breaking it because if everyone did that, no one ...
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.