| |
|
|
One way of resolving the dilemma (…) is to conclude that, at
least according to Kant’s technical definition of
knowledge,
artists do not know what they are doing. They just do it, and allot to
the critics and art historians the task of
figuring
out
what it means and why they bothered. This comforting interpretation,
too, has some plausibility: Many artists do, indeed, find it
extremely difficult
to theorize about what they are doing while they are doing it. It may
take years, if ever, before an artist can
put together
an intelligible commentary about his work that helps it to make sense
to everyone else; and surely this is in part to be
explained by
precisely that direct, intimate
and unmediated relationship between the
artist and
the concrete particular he fashions
Intuition
and Concrete Particularity in Kant’s Transcendental Aesthetic, Adrian Piper
Links and references : www.adrianpiper.com // sensuousknowledge.org
//
|
|
|