Henry, part of the reason I posted this quote was to get evaluation from other thinkers such as yourself. Lundin does grossly oversimplify the situation, so your critique is well taken.
In Lundin’s defense, however, several points can be made. First, he adapts the Shakespearean quote rather than quoting or citing it. He may well not intend any direct connection.
Secondly, appeal to ancient Greece is somewhat unfair, given that he did limit his meaning to the last two millenium.
Also, what I thought was interesting was the revolution he was describing, so I didn’t mind him saying “the” mimetic theory. I don’t think he was asserting one unified theory of art prior to Kant. If asked, I’m sure he would readily admit to gross oversimplification. The point, however, was that Kant’s ideas did have an big influence on art theory.
Finally, context does help. He was not arguing his central attitude toward aesthetics, nor does it reflect a fear of imagination. He was merely providing an example of romanticism’s concept of self. Romanticism held a view of the self that emphasized self-fulfillment, which with respect to art, Lundin seemed to argue, is reflected in an emphasis on self-expression. Both ideas—self-fulfillment and self-expression—find significant roots in Kant’s thought.
I was hoping someone with knowledge in art history or art theory could reflect on this idea. Does the Kantian revolution (self-consciously modeled after the Capernican revolution) help explain modern, contemporary, often abstract (nonrepresentational), art?
anton
Mar 02 2004
10:11 am
Henry, part of the reason I posted this quote was to get evaluation from other thinkers such as yourself. Lundin does grossly oversimplify the situation, so your critique is well taken.
In Lundin’s defense, however, several points can be made. First, he adapts the Shakespearean quote rather than quoting or citing it. He may well not intend any direct connection.
Secondly, appeal to ancient Greece is somewhat unfair, given that he did limit his meaning to the last two millenium.
Also, what I thought was interesting was the revolution he was describing, so I didn’t mind him saying “the” mimetic theory. I don’t think he was asserting one unified theory of art prior to Kant. If asked, I’m sure he would readily admit to gross oversimplification. The point, however, was that Kant’s ideas did have an big influence on art theory.
Finally, context does help. He was not arguing his central attitude toward aesthetics, nor does it reflect a fear of imagination. He was merely providing an example of romanticism’s concept of self. Romanticism held a view of the self that emphasized self-fulfillment, which with respect to art, Lundin seemed to argue, is reflected in an emphasis on self-expression. Both ideas—self-fulfillment and self-expression—find significant roots in Kant’s thought.
I was hoping someone with knowledge in art history or art theory could reflect on this idea. Does the Kantian revolution (self-consciously modeled after the Capernican revolution) help explain modern, contemporary, often abstract (nonrepresentational), art?