geometrical shapes

Status
Not open for further replies.

keannu

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2010
Member Type
Student or Learner
Native Language
Korean
Home Country
South Korea
Current Location
South Korea
source : 12 graders mock test, Sep, 23

In Kant’s view, geometrical shapes are too perfect to induce an aesthetic experience. Insofar as they agree with the underlying concept or idea ― thus possessing the precision that the ancient Greeks sought and celebrated ― geometrical shapes can be grasped, but they do not give rise to emotion, and, most importantly, they do not move the imagination to free and new (mental) lengths. Forms or phenomena, on the contrary, that possess a degree of immeasurability, or that do not appear constrained, stimulate the human imagination ― hence their ability to induce a sublime aesthetic experience. The pleasure associated with experiencing immeasurable objects ― indefinable or formless objects ― can be defined as enjoying one’s own emotional and mental activity. Namely, the pleasure consists of being challenged and struggling to understand and decode the phenomenon present to view. Furthermore, part of the pleasure comes from having one’s comfort zone (momentarily) violated.

=========================
Do you agree with the two sentences? Can you understand them?
 
I can't really see the problem- a circle isn't art for Kant as it cannot inspire an aesthetic reaction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top