| |
|
i need a little help
trying to figure out if i am making any
coherent sense or close to it.
this querie is to do with the crtique of judgment by immanuel kant
...
and for those who feel daring take a look here to decypher my mess:
http://www.etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/k/kant/immanuel/k16j/
Okay here is the excerpt:
(background paragraph)
Looking at the contrasts of what we now know as a modern museum like the Tate in comparison to the Pitt Rivers or another Wunderkammer-like place I visited in London, The Sir John Soane Museum lead me to further question the differences between art and artefact. A very resourceful and fascinating book Art and Artifact Museum as Medium by James Putnam, identifies the connection to Wunderkammer by two distinctions; the collector who uses assemblage through the arrangement and juxtaposition of diverse collected objects and one who explores the parameters between natural and artificial materials, by imaginative manipulation and transformation, illustrated in the works of the Surrealists.
Putnam also accurately describes the Wunderkammer as a very private and devotional place specially created with the profound belief that nature was linked to art. My initial interest in the Wunderkammer was directly for this reason as well as its source for where the natural, artificial, ephemera, and curiosa all meet - its relationship with private and public and the action of opening and revealing. However, the word Wunderkammer was first introduced to me by investigating Czech artist Jan Svankmajer, who devoted a few of his animations to the ideologies of the curiosity cabinet and ever since then I have noticed my natural affinity for enjoying making and viewing art that involves an interaction with a touch of innocence to capture your attention.
(need help here)
I personally feel the spectacle or marvel that is evoked in this manner truly is the heart of the Wunderkammer and poses similarities to Immanuel Kant’s proposal to the beautiful and the sublime in some respects; that we make a judgement of reflection rather than either a judgement of sense or a logically determinative one. The Wunderkammer “naturalia” (which could be a potentially “unpleasing”) or “artificialia” (an object made by the science of man in Wunderkammer) may be argued with the reason that beauty comes from nature and that the fine art (the “artificialia” of Wunderkammer) is distinctly related to justify Kant’s definition for Shone Kunst ist Kunst des Genies – Fine Art is the Art of Genius. In addition to my notion earlier of innocence, relating to Kant’s Critique of Judgement arguing that though the beautiful and the sublime are not determinate on sensation, such as the agreeable or the liking for the good – the liking (an affinity to innocence) is connected with the mere exhibition or power of exhibition, with the result that we regard this power, when an intuition is given us, as harmonizing with the power of concepts, i.e., the further understanding or reason of this harmony found in the Wunderkammer. |
|
|
