Is Michelangelo

’s Pieta A Better Work Of Art Than Duchamp’s Fountain Would Kant And Hume Agree??? Essay, Research Paper

When one looks at two

very different works of art like Michelangelo?s Pieta and Duchamp?s Fountain

the question is often posed as to which is the better piece of art. The

question is also asked at times, what verdict would two different philosophers

give to the works? Would Kant and Hume for example agree on whether or not the

two pieces were both good works, or would they say that neither piece was very

good, or would they say that one work was better then the other. Most critics

who wanted to play it safe would most likely jump to the position that

Michelangelos?s Pieta was a example of ?good? art while Duchamp?s Fountain was

an example of ?bad? art. For the simple reasons that it is not a good idea to

call any piece of art by Michelangelo bad if you want to have any sort of

career as an art critic. The general consensus of the art world is that

Michelangelo was a master, and it would be folly for anyone to say otherwise.

Duchamp?s work on the other hand leaves more room for the critic to pronounce

that it is either good or bad. This could be due in part to the fact that

Duchamp?s work can be considered controversial. People and or critics are more

likely to jump onto either of the bandwagons when there is no universal

acceptance of an piece, or of an artist. In a way it is almost impossible to

compare the two different pieces due to the fact that the relationship between

Michelangelo and his audience is much different then the relationship that

Duchamp has with his audience. Kant and Hume I believe

would both concur with this, but they would also have their own opinions of

whether each piece of art was good on its own. Hume and Kant both seem to agree

that Aesthetic judgements are logically dependant, in that they are dependant

on the sensations of pleasure and liking, but they are also removed from these

feelings and transcend judgements of pleasure and liking.? This may seem to contradict itself, but at

the same time it does not. Most peoples decisions on how they feel about a work

depend on what type of a response they have to that work, the response is based

on their judgements of pleasure and liking. However a learned critics will

often come to the same conclusion about an object in that there is a universal

judgement of what is beautiful and what is not, that all learned and educated

critics will come too. Of the two of them Hume

would be considered more the subjectivist then Kant. Hume states that there is

a different internal fabric in his mind then there is in the mind of the

critic. This leads him to beg the question ?Why ought I give precedence to the

judgement of the critic? I am not the critic and his responses are not my

responses, what sense is there that his pronouncements have a stronger

influence then mine?? He states that the sentiments of men can often differ

with regard to beauty and deformity of all kinds. This is most definitely the

argument of most subjectivists. The belief that the idea of beauty is different

in every individual and that taste in general is relative to the party viewing

the work. So this evidence could almost say that Hume?s viewpoint on whether or

not the one work is better then the other is almost irrelevant to his

philosophies. He believes that the idea of beauty is in the eye of the

beholder, and who is to say that this viewpoint is incorrect? When people say

that beauty is in the eye of the beholder about a man who loves a woman

regardless of what she looks like he is considered noble and to be

admired.? Where as when that same

philosophy is applied to the judgement of art, many consider that it is a cop

out for people who don?t want to make a decision on what is good and what is

bad art.? Hume states that ?Beauty is no

quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind, which contemplates

them; and each mind perceives a different beauty. One person may even perceive

deformity, where another is sensible of beauty, and every individual ought to

acquiesce in his own sentiment, without pretending to regulate those of

others.? Kant on the other hand

would be considered more the objectivist of the two of them. Kant argues that

judgements of beauty itself are synthetic. He would argue that the bare

perceptual form of the object and its interaction with our basic universally

shared mental powers of perception and understanding, are what the decision of

whether or not an object is aesthetically pleasing. Every good critic will come

to the same basic conclusion as to whether or not a work is good since all good

and learned critics will come to the same universal standpoint on what is good

art. Kant states that this universal standpoint can be reached through freeing

our awareness of the object from desire and practical concern, what he calls a

?disinterestedness? of the object. That way we can judge the merits of the work

based on its form and concept, not getting tied up in the conventions of the

day or our first response. Kant believes that there are two judgements

implicitly when a object is pronounced beautiful. A) A judgement of the object,

and B) a judgement of the pleasure given by the object, that it is valid for

everyone. Kant also advances a metaphysical interpretation of an aesthetic

experience. He states that the experience should make us conscious of our

connection that we share with the world, and the connection that we share with

each other, the connection which lies beyond the empirical world. Kant also

argues that the frame of mind that is involved in the judgement of aesthetic

beauty and the appreciation thereof is analogous to the state of mind that is

involved in the awareness of moral obligation. Beauty therefore seems to hold a

moral significance for Kant. He calls it the symbol of the good. I will not

however try to state what Kant?s view on whether or not one of the

above-mentioned works is better then the other. It is possible to look at his

philosophy and try to draw inferences to what he might have thought of the

work, however it is also very possible to miss something in the work that he

may have seen and admired. Duchamp?s work obviously holds social meaning that

is relevant to our time that Kant would not have even understood just due to

the fact that he would not have even recognised what the subject of the work

was, or is. This I believe would have greatly affected his or any critics? view

of the work. Most of the controversy over the work is over its subject. Some

look at the work and say that it is tasteless due to its very subject matter.

However this decision is not entirely based on an evaluation that is

?disinterested? rather it is very culturally loaded. This leads the evaluation

to be considered by some, even by Kant himself to be flawed in that it is not a

?disinterested? opinion. The question as to whether or not those works are good

should be left in the mind of the viewer in my opinion.