What isn't art?
Out of context: Reply #85
- Started
- Last post
- 147 Responses
- ORAZAL0
The Aesthetic of Ugliness — A Kantian Perspective
Mojca KuplenIn the history of aesthetic thought,beauty has been construedas aesthetic value par excelence.According to aesthetic theories,beautiful isthat which gives rise to the feeling of pleasure within us.Hence,aesthetic value of both nature and art works is measured in terms of the feeling of pleasure they occasion in us.Ugliness,correlated to the feeling of displea-sure,on the other hand,has been traditionally theorized as an aestheticcategory that stands in opposition to beauty,and therefore associated withaesthetic disvalue and worthlessness.In recent years,and particularly withthe development of modern art,this traditional aesthetic picture has been widely criticized.It has been pointed out,based on the proliferation of art works that evoke intense feelings of displeasure,that ugliness can be greatly appreciated.Ageneral objective of this paper is to propose an account of ugliness that entails,as its necessary part,the explanation of its possibleappeal.In particular,Ipropose a solution to the problem,known in philo-sophical aesthetics as ‘the paradox of ugliness’,namely how we can valuesomething that we prima faciedo not like and find positively displeasing.Idevelop my explanation of ugliness in light of Kant’s theory of taste.