Kant’s Theory of Artistic Creativity and Genius

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Discussion
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Kant explains genius as the ability that is bestowed upon producers or artists of fine art whereby the origin of the idea of creating the work cannot be explained such as a scientist’s discovery path. One genius can teach another genius without turning them into an imitator by inspiring the ability to trust their imagination. Kant is right to locate the source of art in genius since that is the only explanation of an idea that emerged from a place no one can claim to know, which will be the main focus of the paper.

Discussion

The definition of the type of purpose of artwork evolves alongside the idea of genius, as Kant continues. He argues that such purposiveness develops the intellect and people’s ability to communicate socially. This communication is to involve the element that has furthered the culture of mental powers (Hu, 2020). He continues by intentionally aiming to justify his claims by elaborating the meaning of genius (Kant, 2000, 2:15). The defining purposiveness of great artwork and its aesthetic traits is core as the locus for his perception of genius as well as a definition of natural in character, effect, and purpose.

Kant’s idea of genius offers a privileged view of the artist or producer of fine art with conjectural and ethereal claims. For instance, the artist’s capability cannot be relayed but must be directly conferred on every individual by the hand of nature (Hu, 2020). This specific quality of natural endowment differentiates a genius from a scientist, who cannot be a genius unless they qualify for it and are a fine artist. It is almost impossible to achieve that, considering that scientific findings depend on pre-existing rules as well as empirical evidence of explanatory explanation (Hu, 2020). Any exception to this rule would be regarded as an accident of fate or scientific misadventure instead of the work of a genius.

Nevertheless, Kant does not support that scientists are below the producers of fine art. Kant (2000, 2:18) argues that they have superiority over those who simply merit the honor of geniuses. Kant’s clarification of genius does not show how or why nature endows a certain individual with genius to produce a work of genius. This results in one inquiring whether nature favors those whose habitus allows the pursuit of fine art and the expression of genius (Martyn, 2021). Additionally, whether or not such bestowed status is a phenomenon of Western society as well as breeding (Martyn, 2021). Many non-western artists from cultures without fine art surroundings and education have produced works of genius without any technique, tradition, or qualification rules. This leads to a critical question concerning fine art, which targets understanding what the term fine art means.

Kant describes fine art as a work of genius, stating that nature prescribes the rule of art, not science. He explains genius as an innately natural enigma that characterizes the creator of fine art and is needed for the generation of original, naturally endowed, and exemplary fine art (Martyn, 2021). It is mainly a talent that cannot be instilled by rules, as its core principle is originality. According to Kant (2000, 2:16), rather, it applies as well as establishes the rules that other people seek to imitate. A fine art’s creator is born a genius, a product of nature, devoid of reason and empirical explanation for their involuntary bursts of ideas. Aesthetic ideologies define Kant’s notion of genius (Martyn, 2021). The ingenious notion and its impact on associated concepts and objects, the manipulation of images and the means to do that, and the idea’s originality, are all aspects that triumph artwork’s aesthetic form.

Furthermore, the characteristics show genius and not the work on its own. For Kant, fine art is that which belongs to genius and does not have a purpose. The produced work reflects that genius which is a necessary part of its production, as well as greatness (Reiter, 2018). It is an inherently natural faculty that rules and instills original talents in the art world. It is no less than the innate mental tendency through which nature gives the rule to art. This can be seen as paradoxical, considering that genius is the creator and independent of any rules for fine artworks.

Kant fails to elaborate in detail on his proposition that originality is the core property of genius. He argues that genius is the exemplary originality of a subject’s natural endowment in the free utilization of cognitive ability. He appears to still take this as a given principle of genius without any further desire for explanation (Reiter, 2018). The ambivalent elements of the definitions provoke many questions and few answers, which may be the reason behind explanatory elucidation.

For Kant, fine art eventuates and is understandable as a product of genius, only where it is a talent for producing something for which no definite rule can be provided. Thus, as no definite rule can be a foundation, the genius will not be able to explain why, how, or where the ideologies that created the fine work of art originated (Tuna, 2018). He argues that the artist’s capability cannot be communicated but must be conferred on everyone, as mentioned earlier. He establishes a difference between the work of genius and that of the great mind concerning determinative rules.

As the rules do not allow the creation of works of genius, this is seen as the reason behind fine artworks differing greatly from those of a scientist who applies formulas, principles, and concepts. He gives the example of Newton as a prime candidate for an exceptional thinker who is not a genius since he could show the way he took each step to attain discoveries (Tuna, 2018). Kant suggests that no genius could explain empirically and track the origin of their ideas, as they do not understand that by themselves. Regardless of how groundbreaking or important a scientist’s work is, this cannot be a genius’ work (Tuna, 2018). Kant views this area of the mind of a genius as different from that of the scientist due to genius being characterized by the ability to present aesthetic ideologies and a self-sustaining principle in mind.

Conclusion

The paper proves that Kant is right to locate the source of art in genius as he has used comparisons between artwork by an artist or producer and work of a great mind by scientists. On the one hand, for a scientist such as Newton, it is easier for them to explain how they obtained their discoveries since he uses formulas, principles, and theoretical concepts to guide his work. On the Other hand, an artist cannot explain their idea’s origin since they are unaware, which for Kant, is a work of genius.

References

Hu, X. (2020). Genius is an innate mental talent of idea-giving in Chinese painting and Kant. Philosophy East and West, 70(2), 354-373. Web.

Kant, I. (2000). Critique of the Power of Judgment. Cambridge University Press. Web.

Martyn, D. (2021). Genius, idiotism, translingualism: Maimon and Kant. MLN, 136(3), 587-599. Web.

Reiter, A. (2018). Kant on fine art, genius, and the threat of private meaning. Kantian Review, 23(2), 307-323.

Tuna, E. H. (2018). Kant on informed pure judgments of taste. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 76(2), 163-174. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Kant’s Theory of Artistic Creativity and Genius

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)