Ugliness an object or a kind of representation through

Ugliness depends on the experience
of the feeling of displeasure occasioned by

an object. Displeasure according to
Kant is the representational state of mind that is

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

discomforting that leads us to react
by removing our attention away from it. And

this prima facie implies that
ugliness in art and architecture is an indicator of failure.

However In recent years, indeed with
the development of modern art, this definition

of ugliness has been widely
criticized. surprisingly, it is clear that

many art works and architectural products
are aesthetically displeasing and ugly, yet they may also be greatly

appreciated (Kieran 1997). Experiencing
ugliness as aesthetically

interesting and fascinating is not
only seen in art works alone, even for natural

objects as well (Brady 2010).

however, it is

necessary to refine the distinction between genuine artistic ugliness and artistic

presentation of ugliness. This distinction is
obvious as Kant states : A beauty of nature is a beautiful

the beauty of art is a beautiful representation of a thing” (KU 5:311, p. 189).


In The Critique of Judgment, Immanuel Kant discerns that beauty is a
symbol of morality through assent to universal validity. Kant builds this
argument by demonstrating that the judgment of taste is an aesthetic, not a
cognitive or logical judgment. This aesthetic judgment refers to the pleasure
or displeasure one has when experiencing a pleasing object. The pleasure
(delight) or displeasure however, cannot be a characteristic of the object
experienced. Pleasure or displeasure can only be subjective responses one might
have as a result of experiencing the object.


Taste /kant

At the end of section §6 in the Analytic of the Beautiful,
Kant defines taste as the

“faculty for judging an object or a kind of
representation through a satisfaction or

without any interest” (KU 5:211, p. 96).

Judgement of taste

judgments of taste are subjective, that is,
their determining

ground can be nothing else but the subject’s
experience of the feeling of pleasure or

displeasure. One must necessarily feel pleasure
in order to judge an object beautiful.

That one aesthetically likes (dislikes) the
object must necessarily result from one’s

feeling of being delighted,moved or pleased
(displeased) by the object and it cannot

imputed to someone by means of rational consideration. (Küplen,2015)

The judgment
of taste is a judgment of the form “This X is beautiful,” where X

is an object that we perceive. ( Wenzel,2005)


udgments of taste

are not based on concepts, but merely on the
free play between imagination and

understanding, which is experienced through the
feeling of pleasure. Kant claims that judgments of taste are universally

they depend on the state of mind that we all share


while in cognitive

judgments harmony between imagination and
understanding is constrained by the

concept of the understanding, in judgments of
taste, where no such concept restricts

their harmony is in free play: (Küplen,2015)

Kant claims that judgments of taste are
universally communicable,

they depend on the state of mind that we all share.

Kant also seems to identify negative judgments
of taste depending on the feeling of