Louie, what path are you wanting to take from Kant to Benjamin? In your
formulation, "the Kantian notion of aesthetics as a theory of perception," you
already have your answer. That's pretty much what aesthetics is for Kant--a
theory of perception. How does this theory play out? On the subjective level,
aesthetics is a matter of taste. What one likes or dislikes is a matter of
taste, and taste is not universally shared. Indeed, I might love fried okra, but
I might hate boiled okra. No amount of education can change my taste. However,
on the objective level, aesthetics is a matter of style-form, and by
understanding style-form, I can enhance my awareness of content. Yes, the
form-content dilemma develops as a result of the subjective-objective split, and
note that discussions of aesthetics that relate to the stylistic-formal aspects
of art typically have a Kantian influence: for example, genre theory,
stylistics, . . . .
What passages in Kant are proving difficult for you? Perhaps you could post some
of the material you want to use as the basis for your discussion of Kant and we
could discuss it. Also, there's a good bit of work done on a movie like _The
Gods Must Be Crazy_ that might help you position your stance on Kant.
There are many paths to take in the use of Kantian aesthetics: Schopenhauer,
Emerson, Nietzsche, Langer, . . . . What path do you want to take/make?
Also, you might look at the Hegelian response to Kant. Hegel replaces the
Kantian idea of universality with that of history. While Kant provides the
summation of the Enlightenment in his idea of universality--an idea based in
part on the idea that we all have one father (see Lessing's _Nathan der Weise_)
and that we can all be reconciled to that father--, Hegel takes up the
Enlightenment idea of progress (the child who will find the father)and looks to
history as the enactment of that progress. What Kant and Hegel tend to share,
however, is the Enlightenment ideal of truth.
In the sense that Popper points out, what Hegel introduces is something very
dangerous for Hegel articulates history as the evolution of culture. Hegel does
not focus on technology--the actual stream in culture which does develop--so
much as he focuses on religion, politics, art, . . . --the things which change
in a different way than technology does. That is, technology does tend to begin
at a primitive level and advance toward greater efficiency and sophistication.
However, that culture is itself ever primitive is problematic philosophically.
That culture is itself primitive is politically disastrous for those people
understood as primitive.
Note that the idea of cultural evolution is one that the Darwinian Stephen J.
Gould constantly battles, Yet cultural evolution is an idea that always
influences politics, especially because of the political authority given
science, and it is a form of evolution all to easily confused with technological
evolution and biological evolution.
Aesthetics for Hegel: Art begins at the primitive level as an expression of the
Spirit and develops forward in history. See Croce for more explanation of Hegel.
My take: if you are writing on the relationship between Kant and Benjamin, you
need to be aware of how Schopenhauer and Hegel encounter Kant so that you can
begin to create/trace the ideas you need to connect them.
JMC
|