*******Hello! This document is being made as a resource for information about marginalized (but specifically BLACK right now) artists, art historians, galleries, scholars etc! Please add what you see fit. This is by NO MEANS a complete list and probably never will be, but it is a start for filling the many gaps in western, eurocentric art history. Please feel free to share in and encourage other people to contribute to it, I want this to be as collaborative as possible!
********PLEASE TRY TO ADHERE TO THE ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOC TO MAKE IT EASY TO FIND INFO THANK YOU!*********
ARTICLE LINKS
Black artists: figurative painting
Paul Mpagi Sepuya artist talk: queer black photographer
https://camstl.org/video/artist-talk-paul-mpagi-sepuya/
Black curators curating works by black artists
https://www.artsy.net/article/casey-lesser-4-curators-artists-celebrating-black-history-month
the new black vanguard: photography between art and fashion by Antwaun Sargent
https://aperture.org/shop/the-new-black-vanguard
The Spiral - New-York based African American Artist Collective (1963-1965)
https://www.artsy.net/gene/spiral-group
https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/s/spiral
Black muses erased in art history
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-rediscovering-black-muses-erased-art-history
DATABASES / PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
The Association for Critical Race Art History (ACRAH) is a professional organization that promotes art historical scholarship from a critical race perspective:
https://blackcontemporaryart.tumblr.com
ART SPACES/MUSEUMS/GALLERIES
Doc of All LA Based Black Art Spaces
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11B7af6BrQDFEWk_PEOx_XFSJGywYCSeITuNDvsTs6Mc/htmlview
Souls Grown Deep- Organization dedicated to the work of African American Artists from the South
https://www.soulsgrowndeep.org
Art Galleries at Black Studies at The University of Texas at Austin (Christian-Green Gallery and Idea Lab)
The Underground Museum
https://theunderground-museum.org
Just Above Midtown Gallery
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/jam-linda-goode-bryant-frieze-1531759
https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/5078
The Studio Museum in Harlem
By Us For Us
(F)EMPOWER]
https://www.instagram.com/fempowermia/?hl=en
Art Hoe Collective
https://www.instagram.com/arthoecollective/?hl=en
https://www.dazeddigital.com/projects/article/29584/1/art-hoe-collective
Project Row Houses
Art & Practice
https://www.artandpractice.org
ReBuild Foundation
https://rebuild-foundation.org
California African American Museum
Ori Gallery
EXHIBITIONS
Soul of a Nation: Art in the Age of Black Power
https://www.thebroad.org/soul-of-a-nation
Marking Time: Art in the Age of Mass Incarceration
https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/5208
Figuring History
http://figuringhistory.site.seattleartmuseum.org
Black is a Color
About Things Loved: Blackness and Belonging
https://bampfa.org/program/about-things-loved-blackness-and-belonging
GRANTS / FELLOWSHIPS
Getty Multicultural Internship
http://opac.pub.getty.edu/foundation/initiatives/current/mui/index.html
Getty Marrow Internships
https://www.getty.edu/foundation/initiatives/current/mui/
Black Futures Fund Grant
https://www.blackartfutures.org/application/
Arts Leaders Relief Fund
https://www.gofundme.com/f/artsleadersfund
William H. Johnson Grant
http://www.cac.ca.gov/grants/grantdetail.php?id=1146
Tropical Cream Magazine Black Womxn & GNC Artist Relief Fund
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSebsC519fVJ9b3BMk4P-m6tdH1GjqI2eKIyRYDJfIczK061dA/viewform
Black Trans Femmes in the Arts
https://www.instagram.com/btfacollective/
https://twitter.com/btfacollective
https://cash.app/$btfacollective
https://www.paypal.me/btfacollective
Activation Residency
https://activationresidency.com
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/activation-residency-kamra-hakim-13253/
CATALOGUES / PUBLICATIONS
(IF YOU WANT TO PURCHASE ANY OF THESE PLEASE DO SO FROM AN INDEPENDENT BOOKSTORE AND NOT AMAZON FOR THE LOVE OF GOD)
The New Black Vanguard
https://aperture.org/shop/the-new-black-vanguard/
Among Others: Blackness At MoMA
The Routledge Companion to African American Art History
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351045193
The Art Of Relevance
Exhibiting Blackness: African Americans and the American Art Museum
https://www.umass.edu/umpress/title/exhibiting-blackness
Museums, Equality and Social Justice
Cosmologies from the Tree of Life: Art from the African American South
https://vmfashop.com/cosmologies-from-the-tree-of-life-art-from-the-african-american-south.html
Mounting Frustration: The Art Museum in the Age of Black Power
https://www.dukeupress.edu/mounting-frustration
ART HISTORIANS / SCHOLARS
Kimberly Drew
https://www.instagram.com/museummammy/?hl=en
https://blackcontemporaryart.tumblr.com
Thelma Golden
https://studiomuseum.org/thelma-golden
https://www.ted.com/speakers/thelma_golden
Hilton Als
https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/hilton-als
https://www.artbook.com/c5324.html
https://www.artbook.com/c5352.html
Rujecko Hockley
https://www.culturedmag.com/rujeko-hockley/
Okwui Enwezor
https://www.artbook.com/c16047.html
Moyosore Okediji
https://art.utexas.edu/people/moyosore-okediji
Cherise Smith
Darby English
https://arthistory.uchicago.edu/faculty/profiles/english
https://www.interviewmagazine.com/art/darby-english-the-insiders
Antwaun Sargent
https://www.instagram.com/sirsargent/?hl=en
https://www.antwaunsargent.com
Linda Goode Bryant
https://www.moma.org/artists/35553
Leigh Raiford
https://uncpress.org/book/9781469609782/imprisoned-in-a-luminous-glare/
https://uwapress.uw.edu/book/9780295999579/migrating-the-black-body/
https://ugapress.org/book/9780820328140/the-civil-rights-movement-in-american-memory/
Christina Sharpe
https://www.dukeupress.edu/in-the-wake
Bridget R. Cooks
https://www.umass.edu/umpress/title/exhibiting-blackness
Essence Harden
Kellie Jones
https://www.dukeupress.edu/south-of-pico
Huey Copeland
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo11104123.html
Paul Gilroy
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674076068
Stuart Hall
Kobena Mercer
https://www.dukeupress.edu/travel-and-see
Steven Nelson
https://arthistory.ucla.edu/faculty-profiles/steven-nelson/
Patricia Hill Collins
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3174683?seq=1
Krista Thompson
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41430735?seq=1
Valerie Cassel Oliver
https://www.vmfa.museum/collections/curators/
http://amsterdamnews.com/news/2019/aug/22/art-curator-valerie-cassel-oliver-talks-success-ar/
Hamza Walker
https://www.artagencypartners.com/aap-author/hamza-walker/
Tobias Wofford
Eddie Chambers
Rizvana Bradley
https://arthistory.yale.edu/people/rizvana-bradley
Nicole Fleetwood
https://amerstudies.rutgers.edu/faculty-menu/core-faculty/nicole-r-fleetwood
ARTISTS
Kerry James Marshall
https://jackshainman.com/artists/kerry_james_marshall
https://art21.org/artist/kerry-james-marshall/
https://www.moca.org/exhibition/kerry-james-marshall-mastry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=34&v=MO0fwUFLXX8&feature=emb_logo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=3jQJSuw4Jbk&feature=emb_logo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTELwNsLANA
Amy Sherald
https://nmwa.org/explore/artist-profiles/amy-sherald
https://www.hauserwirth.com/artists/11577-amy-sherald
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPQSKQ7Rnyo
Hank Willis Thomas
https://www.hankwillisthomas.com
https://portlandartmuseum.org/exhibitions/hank-willis-thomas/
https://jackshainman.com/artists/hank_willis_thomas
https://www.ksmoca.com/hank-willis-thomas-freedom-ride
Faith Ringgold
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/artists/the-storyteller-faith-ringgold-5918/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lia6SFTOeu8
Carrie Mae Weems
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/t-magazine/carrie-mae-weems-interview.html
https://art21.org/artist/carrie-mae-weems/
Mickalene Thomas
https://www.mickalenethomas.com
https://www.lehmannmaupin.com/artists/mickalene-thomas
https://nmwa.org/explore/artist-profiles/mickalene-thomas
Tyler Mitchell
https://www.instagram.com/tylersphotos/?hl=en
https://www.vogue.com/article/tyler-mitchell-beyonce-photographer-vogue-september-issue
Kara Walker
https://walkerart.org/collections/artists/kara-walker
https://art21.org/artist/kara-walker/
Jean Michel Basquiat
https://www.thebroad.org/art/jean-michel-basquiat
Francis Nnaggenda
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/422707
https://www.contemporaryand.com/magazines/a-lifetime-shaping-art-and-education-in-uganda/
Henry Ossawa Tanner
https://americanart.si.edu/artist/henry-ossawa-tanner-4742
https://www.nga.gov/collection/artist-info.1919.html
Kehinde Wiley
Alma Thomas
https://americanart.si.edu/artist/alma-thomas-4778
https://nmwa.org/explore/artist-profiles/alma-woodsey-thomas
https://www.phillipscollection.org/research/american_art/bios/thomas-bio.htm
Adrian Piper
https://hammer.ucla.edu/exhibitions/2018/adrian-piper-concepts-and-intuitions-1965-2016
https://hyperallergic.com/439255/adrian-piper-museum-of-modern-art-retrospective/
Glenn Ligon
http://www.glennligonstudio.com
https://art21.org/artist/glenn-ligon/
https://www.moma.org/artists/6902
James Van Der Zee
http://www.howardgreenberg.com/artists/james-van-der-zee
https://americanart.si.edu/artist/james-vanderzee-6593
Jacob Lawrence
https://lawrencemigration.phillipscollection.org/artist/about-jacob-lawrence
https://www.moma.org/artists/3418
https://americanart.si.edu/artist/jacob-lawrence-2828
Gwendolyn Knight
https://www.phillipscollection.org/research/american_art/bios/knight-bio.htm
http://thejohnsoncollection.org/gwendolyn-knight/
Horace Pippin
https://www.phillipscollection.org/research/american_art/bios/pippin-bio.htm
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/482605
https://transcription.si.edu/project/12013
Wangechi Mutu
https://www.saatchigallery.com/artists/wangechi_mutu.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQgCX7HZoW0
https://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2019/facade-commission-wangechi-mutu
Nick Cave
https://art21.org/artist/nick-cave/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/15/t-magazine/nick-cave-artist.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDUa1K7fJGk
https://jackshainman.com/artists/nick_cave
Eric N. Mack
https://www.simonleegallery.com/artists/eric-n-mack/
https://www.desertx.org/ericmack
Lorraine O’Grady
http://lorraineogrady.com/about/
https://www.alexandergray.com/artists/lorraine-o-grady
https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/lorraine-ogrady-untitled-mlle-bourgeoise-noire-1980-832009/
David Hammons
https://www.moma.org/artists/2486
https://www.hauserwirth.com/hauser-wirth-exhibitions/24162-david-hammons-los-angeles
https://news.artnet.com/exhibitions/david-hammons-in-los-angeles-1551100
Noah Davis
https://www.davidzwirner.com/exhibitions/noah-davis-2020
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/arts/design/noah-davis-david-zwirner-review.html
https://theunderground-museum.org/Imitation-of-Wealth
Romare Bearden
https://beardenfoundation.org/romare-bearden/
http://www.dcmooregallery.com/artists/romare-bearden
https://americanart.si.edu/artist/romare-bearden-296
Kahlil Joseph
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/11/06/the-black-excellence-of-kahlil-joseph
https://www.surfacemag.com/articles/kahlil-joseph-challenging-black-life/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fLKcHu-LJo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF1T-AEH2GA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otPECh1Q2xQ
Karon Davis
http://wildingcran.com/karon-davis
https://frieze.com/fair-programme/karon-davis
https://www.bonappetit.com/story/karon-davis
Noah Purifoy
https://www.lacma.org/art/exhibition/noah-purifoy-junk-dada
Njideka Akunyili Crosby
https://www.sfmoma.org/watch/njideka-akunyili-crosby-on-painting-cultural-collision/
https://www.davidzwirner.com/artists/njideka-akunyili-crosby
https://www.macfound.org/fellows/979/
Aria Dean
http://chateaushatto.com/artist/aria-dean/
https://www.culturedmag.com/aria-dean-young-artists-2018/
Henry Taylor
https://www.blumandpoe.com/artists/henry_taylor?non_represented=false
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-artist-who-was-a-legend-before-he-became-a-legend-1488465851
Kevin Beasley
https://art21.org/artist/kevin-beasley/
https://www.icaboston.org/exhibitions/kevin-beasley
https://whitney.org/Exhibitions/KevinBeasley
Ralph Lemon
https://www.foundationforcontemporaryarts.org/recipients/ralph-lemon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q6OPBCAl3Q
Mark Bradford
https://art21.org/artist/mark-bradford/
https://www.thebroad.org/art/mark-bradford
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kd-t8LWras
Sam Gilliam
https://www.davidkordanskygallery.com/artist/sam-gilliam
https://americanart.si.edu/artist/sam-gilliam-1811
https://www.diaart.org/exhibition/exhibitions-projects/sam-gilliam-exhibition
Deana Lawson
https://www.sikkemajenkinsco.com/deana-lawson
https://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2011/newphotography/deana-lawson/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/07/deana-lawsons-kingdom-of-restored-glory
Lorna Simpson
https://www.hauserwirth.com/artists/2860-lorna-simpson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXhEZeL7gUc
Roy De Carava
https://www.moma.org/artists/1422
http://www.howardgreenberg.com/artists/roy-decarava
https://theunderground-museum.org/Roy-DeCarava
https://www.artsy.net/artist/roy-decarava
Toyin Ojih Odutola
https://jackshainman.com/artists/toyin_ojih_odutola
https://whitney.org/Essays/ToyinOjihOdutola
Rodney McMillan
https://www.sfmoma.org/exhibition/new-work-rodney-mcmillian/
https://theunderground-museum.org/Rodney-McMillian
Jason Moran
https://whitney.org/exhibitions/jason-moran
Arthur Jafa
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/t-magazine/arthur-jafa-in-bloom.html
https://www.moca.org/exhibition/arthur-jafa-love-is-the-message-the-message-is-death
https://www.moca.org/arthurjafaessay
https://www.moca.org/program/arthur-jafa-and-helen-molesworth-in-conversation
https://news.artnet.com/exhibitions/arthur-jafa-white-album-1448167
Pope.L
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N7OnQkch7s
https://www.foundationforcontemporaryarts.org/recipients/popel
https://www.moca.org/exhibition/william-popel-trinket
Fred Eversley
https://www.davidkordanskygallery.com/artist/fred-eversley
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/fred-eversley-profile-1521115
Julie Mehretu
https://art21.org/artist/julie-mehretu/
https://whitecube.com/artists/artist/julie_mehretu
https://www.lacma.org/art/exhibition/julie-mehretu
EJ Hill
https://hammer.ucla.edu/exhibitions/2018/made-in-la-2018/ej-hill
Ellen Gallagher
https://gagosian.com/artists/ellen-gallagher/
https://art21.org/artist/ellen-gallagher/
https://www.thebroad.org/art/ellen-gallagher
LaToya Ruby Fraiser
http://www.latoyarubyfrazier.com
https://art21.org/artist/latoya-ruby-frazier/
Elizabeth Catlett
https://nmwa.org/explore/artist-profiles/elizabeth-catlett
Charles White
https://www.moma.org/artists/6339
https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/3930
Alison Saar
https://lalouver.com/artist.cfm?tArtist_id=263
https://nmwa.org/explore/artist-profiles/alison-saar
Betye Saar
https://www.moma.org/artists/5102
https://www.getty.edu/recordingartists/season-1/saar/
https://www.lacma.org/art/exhibition/betye-saar-call-and-response
Brenna Youngblood
http://www.honorfraser.com/?s=artists&aid=26
https://hammer.ucla.edu/exhibitions/2006/hammer-projects-brenna-youngblood
Renee Cox
https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/eascfa/about/feminist_art_base/renee-cox
https://www.art.yale.edu/renee-cox
Howardena Pindell
https://www.howardenapindell.org
https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/howardena-pindell-free-white-and-21-1980/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5tJNXiB9Ko
Senga Nengudi
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b3vRBe0Axo
https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/senga-nengudi-r-s-v-p-i-19772003/
Simone Leigh
https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/artist/simone-leigh
https://sculpturemagazine.art/simone-leigh-in-new-york/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/arts/design/simone-leigh-sculpture-high-line.html
Sable Elyse Smith
https://art.richmond.edu/faculty/ssmith23/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjX3nzcNgJY
https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/5086
Alison Janae Hamilton
https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/5086
http://www.allisonjanaehamilton.com
https://massmoca.org/event/allison-janae-hamilton-pitch/
https://www.moma.org/magazine/articles/169
Tschabalala Self
https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/5086
https://fryemuseum.org/exhibition/7042/
Nari Ward
https://www.nariwardstudio.com
https://www.newmuseum.org/exhibitions/view/nari-ward-we-the-people
https://www.lehmannmaupin.com/artists/nari-ward
Clementine Hunter
https://nmwa.org/explore/artist-profiles/clementine-hunter
Emma Amos
Stanley Whitney
https://www.lissongallery.com/artists/stanley-whitney
Mary Sibande
http://kavigupta.com/artist/mary-sibande/
https://www.cnn.com/style/article/mary-sibande-sophie-sculpture/index.html
Deborah Roberts
http://www.deborahrobertsart.com
https://thecontemporaryaustin.org/exhibitions/deborah-roberts/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/arts/design/deborah-roberts-artist-virus-austin.html
Michael Ray Charles
https://art21.org/artist/michael-ray-charles/
Gordon Parks
http://www.gordonparksfoundation.org
https://www.nga.gov/education/teachers/lessons-activities/uncovering-america/parks-photography.html
Chris Ofili
https://www.davidzwirner.com/artists/chris-ofili/biography
https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/chris-ofili-2543
Charles Henry Alston
https://americanart.si.edu/education/oh-freedom/charles-henry-alston
Augusta Savage
https://americanart.si.edu/artist/augusta-savage-4269
Amanda Williams
https://www.rhoffmangallery.com/artists/amanda-williams
Lyle Ashton Harris
https://www.lyleashtonharris.com
https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/artist/lyle-ashton-harris
Robert Colescott
https://www.blumandpoe.com/artists/robert_colescott
Lauren Halsey
https://www.davidkordanskygallery.com/artist/lauren-halsey
https://www.moca.org/exhibition/lauren-halsey-we-still-here-there
Jack Whitten
https://www.hauserwirth.com/artists/2853-jack-whitten
https://art21.org/artist/jack-whitten/
William T. Williams
https://www.michaelrosenfeldart.com/artists/william-t-williams-b1942
https://www.moma.org/artists/6382
Richard Mudariki
https://www.artco-art.com/artists/49-richard-mudariki/biography/
Al Loving
https://www.garthgreenan.com/artists/al-loving
Richard Hunt
http://kavigupta.com/artist/richard-hunt/
Melvin Edwards
https://www.alexandergray.com/artists/melvin-edwards
https://hammer.ucla.edu/now-dig-this/artists/melvin-edwards
https://www.moma.org/artists/1685
Edward Clark
https://www.hauserwirth.com/artists/25334-ed-clark
Frank Bowling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD5Ft2t7QBI
https://www.alexandergray.com/artists/frank-bowling
Hale Woodruff
https://americanart.si.edu/artist/hale-woodruff-5477
http://thejohnsoncollection.org/hale-woodruff/
Norman Lewis
https://americanart.si.edu/artist/norman-lewis-2921
https://hyperallergic.com/281487/filling-out-the-story-on-the-art-of-norman-lewis/
Beauford Delaney
https://americanart.si.edu/artist/beauford-delaney-1186
https://www.michaelrosenfeldart.com/artists/beauford-delaney-1901-1979
Harold Cousins
https://www.michaelrosenfeldart.com/artists/harold-cousins-1916-1992
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/491240
Tavares Strachan
https://isolatedlabs.com/about/
https://www.mariangoodman.com/artists/312-tavares-strachan/
Charles Alston
https://www.michaelrosenfeldart.com/artists/charles-alston-1907-1977
http://thejohnsoncollection.org/charles-alston/
Abigail DeVille
https://art21.org/artist/abigail-deville/
https://iscp-nyc.org/resident/abigail-deville
Rick Lowe
https://uh.edu/kgmca/about/admin/bios/rick-lowe.php
https://www.macfound.org/fellows/920/
Paula Wilson
https://visitorwelcomecenter.org/PaulaWilson.html
Sanford Biggers
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/15/the-playful-political-art-of-sanford-biggers
Robert Pruitt
https://hyperallergic.com/474099/robert-pruitt-california-african-american-museum-devotion/
https://artadia.org/artist/robert-pruitt/
http://koplindelrio.com/robert-pruitt/
http://stationmuseum.com/?page_id=3077
Renee Green
https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/features/in-the-studio-renee-green-63389/
http://act.mit.edu/people/faculty/renee-green/
Paul Mpagi Sepuya
https://aperture.org/shop/paul-mpagi-sepuya/
Zanele Muholi
https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/exhibition/zanele-muholi
https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/artist/zanele-muholi
https://art21.org/artist/zanele-muholi/
Xaviera Simmons
https://davidcastillogallery.com/artists/xaviera-simmons/
https://www.guggenheim.org/artwork/artist/xaviera-simmons
https://afvs.fas.harvard.edu/people/xaviera-simmons
Aaron Douglas
https://www.nga.gov/collection/artist-info.38654.html
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/676458
Ayana V. Jackson
https://www.thisiscolossal.com/2019/09/portraits-by-ayana-v-jackson/
https://marianeibrahim.com/artists/27-ayana-v.-jackson/biography/
Scipio Moorhead
https://aaregistry.org/story/scipio-moorhead-an-early-artist-in-america/
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2h7.html
Myles Loftin
http://www.mylesloftinphotography.com
https://www.instagram.com/mylesloftin/?hl=en
https://www.forbes.com/profile/myles-loftin/#1c52ddb2ddd6
John Akomfrah
https://www.lissongallery.com/artists/john-akomfrah
http://akomfrah.site.seattleartmuseum.org
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/oct/01/john-akomfrah-purple-climate-change
Lynette Yiadom-Boakye
https://jackshainman.com/artists/lynette_yiadom_boakye
https://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-britain/exhibition/lynette-yiadom-boakye
El-Anatsui
https://jackshainman.com/artists/el_anatsui
https://art21.org/artist/el-anatsui/
Carl Pope
https://artmattersfoundation.org/grantees/carl-pope-1
Trenton Doyle Handcock
https://www.jamescohan.com/artists/trenton-doyle-hancock
https://art21.org/artist/trenton-doyle-hancock/
https://massmoca.org/event/trenton-doyle-hancock-mind-of-the-mound-critical-mass/
Sydney Vernon
https://thierrygoldberg.com/Sydney-Vernon-When-We-See-Us
https://www.artofchoice.co/sydney-vernon-movingly-reimagines-personal-family-photographs/
Valente Malangatana
https://www.artic.edu/exhibitions/9169/malangatana-mozambique-modern
Nastio Mosquito
https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/2724
https://futuregenerationartprize.org/en/history/2014/nastio-mosquito
Georgette Seabrooke Powell
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/491386
Sadie Barnette
https://www.sadiebarnette.com/homes/
https://www.sadiebarnette.com/biography/
Sula Bermudez-Silverman
https://caamuseum.org/exhibitions/2020/sula-bermudez-silverman-neither-fish-flesh-nor-fowl
Kenyatta A.C. Hinkle
http://www.jenkinsjohnsongallery.com/artists/kenyatta-a-c-hinkle
Raymond Saunders
https://hammer.ucla.edu/now-dig-this/artists/raymond-saunders
http://www.loraschlesinger.com/saunders.html
Lava Thomas
https://americanart.si.edu/artist/lava-thomas-31178
Charles Gaines
https://www.hauserwirth.com/artists/21845-charles-gaines
https://hammer.ucla.edu/exhibitions/2015/charles-gaines-gridwork-1974-1989
Diedrick Brackens
https://www.diedrickbrackens.com
https://jackshainman.com/artists/diedrick_brackens
Girma Berta
https://addisfineart.com/artists/49-girma-berta/biography/
https://nataal.com/girma-berta/
Chakaia Booker
https://nmwa.org/explore/artist-profiles/chakaia-booker
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/492175
Peter Bradley
https://www.thesquirefoundation.org/peter-bradley
Erica Deeman
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=erica+deeman&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
http://www.laurencemillergallery.com/artists/erica-deeman
Mildred Howard
https://anglimgilbertgallery.com/mildred-howard/#ms-5957
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6HNchGXAnw
Margo Humphrey
https://americanart.si.edu/artist/margo-humphrey-5840
https://www.moma.org/artists/6628
Kamau Amu Patton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQbe9v2Bf-0
Hervé Télémaque
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/herve-telemaque-museum-of-modern-art-1685749
https://www.moma.org/artists/5827
Fred Wilson
https://www.pacegallery.com/artists/fred-wilson/
https://art21.org/artist/fred-wilson/
Dawoud Bey
http://stephendaitergallery.com/artists/dawoud-bey/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/24/lens/dawoud-bey-seeing-deeply.html
Tawny Chatmon
Jade Yasm
Nneka Jones
Titus Kaphar
Bisa Butler
Barkley L. Hendricks
Epaul Julien
Purvis Young
Rashid Johnson
Martin Puyear
American Artist
Garry Simmons
Adebunmi Gbadebo
Omar Victor Diops
Gio Swaby
Karyn Olivier
Amber Robles-Gordon
FURTHER READINGS
https://hammer.ucla.edu/blog/2020/06/anti-racism-reading-list-hammer-staff
KANT AND SUBJECTIVITY: AESTHETICS AND JUDGMENT OF TASTE
Charles Gaines, Summer, 2018
To Mary and Hannah
SUMMARY
I have been going over Kant’s writings on aesthetics and also commentaries that analyze his writings on the subject in order to show in what way culture is involved in aesthetic judgment. My notes following this summary comes from The Critique of Judgment, mostly direct citations. The big picture is this, that Kant disagreed with the Empiricists such as Hume and Baumgartner about the way we acquire knowledge of the world, particularly with respect to feeling judgments and the notion of the beautiful. To summarize my notes on the matter, Kant did not believe that humans experience order directly from the world. He argued that it comes from certain faculties of judgment that are a priori, which he called the understanding. This means, contrary to other philosophies, rather than considering that knowledge comes from the observations of an objective world, Kant argued that judgment itself was the innate cognitive faculty of the human mind, objects and ideas are a product of these judgments, not the objective world. He said judgment has two aspects, “determining” which describes rational judgments, and “reflecting” which describes feeling and aesthetic judgments. Rational judgments involve objects and ideas. This paper is focused on feeling judgments, particularly the judgment of beauty, how humans judge or experience the world through the feeling judgments of pleasure or the unpleasant. His singular contribution was the idea of human subjectivity as a universal construct, what Kant called “common sense.” This introduces the proposition of communicability, a concept that presumes the existence of a community of different agents that is singularized by a structure they all share, and establishing by this a universality, a single thing common to all people. In this sense, the understanding is proposed as a universal structure that replaces the empiricist idea that we acquire knowledge through the observation of the world. In terms of the beautiful Kant demonstrated that the judgment of beauty is a function of the universal subject, a concept that locates the imagination and our intuitions. This establishes beauty as a universal construct. It is more than sense experience, it determines that the sense experience is or is not beautiful.
With respect to taste, Kant showed that the judgment of taste is in fact a product of the universal subject. Essentially, an object is judged to be beautiful, but this requires that this object is beautiful for its own sake, it is not a beautiful object, it is judged beautiful. It is not judged beautiful by any idea or set of rules. Even though taste is not a rational cognitive construct, it is nevertheless a universal one; taste is determined universal if it is a judgment that exists in all persons in the same way. This is tricky to explain because it is not a judgment of the object itself, although it starts with an object. It is that the object becomes the catalyst of a subjective experience, and ultimately it is this experience that is Kant argues is universal. Kant argues that it involves a complex argument whereby the particular object or experience of pleasure derived from it are not the determinant of its beauty, instead beauty is the experience of certain formal apprehensions of the experience. Often in art theory, the aesthetic experience is not produced by a cultural object like a recognizable thing in the world. It is produced by an encounter with the abstract that allows the perception of the object to be pleasurable, and as such it is universal. Taste is engaged when there is a link between these formal structures and individual experiences. Specifically, intuition that is linked to pleasure or displeasure, the latter is the universal expression of the individual through intuition. What is shared between different people is the sentiment of pleasure, it is this sentiment that is universal, which eliminates the problem for him of trying to prove that the experience itself is the same in all persons. In other words, we all experience pleasure and we can say this without having to show how the individual and actual moment of pleasure is the same in all people. for example, let’s take the individual experience of the smell of a rose, is this smell the same in all persons. This raises the question how do you determine that? You simply cannot. But Kant asserts that one can determine that the feeling that gives rise to the experience is the same in all persons. We will explain how.
The way Kant says it works is, as we have said, that the feeling is what he called a “common sense” and built into this is the faculty of communicability, which means as part of its formal property the expectation of the “assent of others” is logically framed. Personally, this is the least convincing part of Kant’s thesis. But here is where I identify one aspect of the role of culture in aesthetic judgment. He regarded this judgment as going through various stages from the personal experience to concepts. It is here where aesthetic judgments are similar to rational judgments in that they have the same logical structure, but the big difference is that rational judgments are derived from concepts whereas aesthetic judgments are not, they are judgments made without the necessity of concepts or objects. But he says that they are otherwise structurally similar and therefore, through intuition, not through an object but through pleasure, we are able to establish the conditions for “the assent of others.” Otherwise what does “assent” mean? What is it that others are agreeing to? That this idea of assent is necessary to determine the universality of the experience, taking it beyond just being an individual experience. In rational judgment the “assent of others” is established through reason and operate within the domain of objects and ideas. In feeling judgements, the “assent of others” does not operate through the domain of objects and ideas, because in this case aesthetic judgments are not judgments of objects or ideas. The question here is then how can aesthetic judgements happen in the first place?
Here is where Kant is significant as a phenomenologist. He is the originator of the idea of the bourgeois subject in that he proposes the subject as a universal construct, which is necessary for aesthetic judgment. He isolates the experience of the subject without the necessity of objects as the sign of subjectivity, or as he says, the subject without the predicate. This is so especially with respect to the production of works of art. The bourgeois subject, as Terry Eagleton explains, is autonomous and perfectly self-reflexive, making it a type of author of the world rather than just a spectator. So, the judgment of beauty is determined to be a subjective judgment.
Additionally, Kant argued that the judgment of beauty is ultimately a synthetic structure, which means that within its framework, we have both the idea of the individual as well as the cultural (built in to his theory of the “assent of others”). But he defines both differently than the way each is defined in rational judgments. They are proposed as fictions in aesthetic judgments, meaning there is no individual only the universal idea of it, a fictional idea, and there is no cultural object, only a structure that produces it as a fiction. The components of cognitive judgement exist in aesthetic judgment but without the object. What replaces the object is the subject. So just as in the idea of rational judgments, the individual and the cultural are both necessary in order to establish the subject as universal.
“the aesthetic judgment rests upon the same unique conditions as ordinary cognition, and thus that the former must have the same universal communicability and validity as the latter.” (From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
This means rational judgements require objects and ideas in order for the assent of others to be a factor; this is an essential part that is necessary for the universalization of the judgment (remember, universalization presumes the existence of a cognitive or aesthetic judgement common to all people, hence one needs the individual in order to achieve a population of individuals wherein a property is common). In aesthetic judgments there are neither objects or ideas, but in order for a judgment to be possible, the assent of others is still necessary, so the individual as well as the collective are produced as fictions. As a result, aesthetic judgment is defined as a universal construct, it is a judgment common to all. It establishes the idea of a universal experience that is common to all, an experience not produced by an object or idea in the world, but as a manifestation of our imagination and intuitions.
In addition, Kant speaks about aesthetics, the beautiful in particular, that it is the source of our moral understanding. This is also built into the idea of the ‘assent of others.” Our ability to make judgments that are not based in reason shows that we can come to a common understanding about things that do not exist, such as the determination of the good.
Again, going back to the judgment of taste, much of the discussion around taste takes two forms, its expression in works of art and its recognition in the work of art. Kant speaks a lot about how taste works in the making of art work, but he spends no time in discussing how we experience taste judgment in works of art. He does so with respect to Nature but not art. This is probably understandable because the critique of works of art is addressed in the general idea of aesthetic judgment. Even so, it seems he would have commented on how they are experienced, not just made. With respect to the production of art, he addressed it through his concept of “genius.” A work of art is a product of a genius.
But it is through the sublime that I read a relationship between judgments of taste and culture. Kant had two theories of the beautiful, one was the beautiful and the other was the sublime. I go into their differences below, but for now, the beautiful is a judgment made in the absence of objects and ideas, and the sublime is an aesthetic judgment that responds to objects and ideas and functions on rationality and objects (culture). In essence, the sublime experience is the failure of the imagination to apprehend the totality of a concept or object. (It is important to remember that in the case of the aesthetics of the sublime, concepts and objects are necessary). The sublime is the encounter of the infinite, the immeasurable, and in order to form such an experience one needs to have it through objects, hence culture. The sublime does not transcend the object, it is a void that is produced by the limits of our understanding. The experience is a feeling, just like in the beautiful, but it is not the sense of totality that the beautiful produces, but instead a discomfort, even a terror, an awareness of one’s inadequacy in understanding the totality of the world.
It is clear to me that I used the sublime as part of the experience of the beautiful in works of art to address, within the general term aesthetics, the role of culture. I understand now that Kant himself doesn’t do this, but he does come close in his statement that the judgment of the beautiful which includes taste is a synthetic judgment. It is through Lyotard that we begin to understand the significant role that the sublime plays in not only the production of art but also in experiencing a work of art. Specifically, the experience of a work of art transcends the imagination. Furthermore, it is this idea of the synthetic that is key to explaining the presence of ideas of any sort in works of art, whether as a fiction, in the way Kant argued it, or as a property; there is in fact no autonomous idea of the judgment of feeling with respect to a work of art when that feeling is judged to be beautiful (taste).
GAINES NOTES AND COMMENTARIES: KANT, AESTHETICS AND SUBJECTIVITY
https://www.iep.utm.edu/kantaest/
INTERNET ENCYLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY
Because such faculties in general are required for all theoretical cognition whatsoever, regardless of its object (as Kant claims to have proven in the first Critique), they can be assumed present a priori, in the same form and in the same way, in all human beings. The presence of the cognitive sub-faculties in their various relations is equivalent with the principle of the universal communicability and validity (i.e. common sense) of any mental state in which these faculties are involved a priori. Therefore, an aesthetic judgment must be seen to be an expression of this principle. The key move is obviously to claim that the aesthetic judgment rests upon the same unique conditions as ordinary cognition, and thus that the former must have the same universal communicability and validity as the latter. It is just that, presented with the beautiful, our cognitive faculties are released from the limitations that characterize ordinary thought, and produce what above we called a cascade of thoughts and feelings.
THIS IS AN EXPLANATION OF A UNIVERSAL SUBJECTIVITY.
For example, the notions of common sense and communicability are closely akin to key political ideas, leading several commentators to propose that what Kant is really writing about are the foundations of any just politics (see e.g. sect.60). Or again, the 'freedom' of the imagination is explicitly linked by Kant to the freedom characteristic of the moral will, allowing Kant to construct a deeply rooted link between beauty and the moral (sect.59).
KANT IN HIS IDEA OF COMMUNICABILITY EXPRESSES THE IDEA OF COMMON SENSE, OR THAT ALL HUMANS HAVE THE SAME FACULTIES OF AESTHETIC JUDGMENT. HERE COMMUNICABILITY ESTABLISHES, TOO, THAT THESE JUDGMENTS ARE UNIVERSAL. His notion of “common sense” defines his phenomenological roots and the universal basis of subjectivity.
Because such faculties in general are required for all theoretical cognition whatsoever, regardless of its object (as Kant claims to have proven in the first Critique), they can be assumed present a priori, in the same form and in the same way, in all human beings. The presence of the cognitive sub-faculties in their various relations is equivalent with the principle of the universal communicability and validity (i.e. common sense) of any mental states in which these faculties are involved a priori.
WITH RESPECT TO AESTHETIC JUDGMENTS AS UNIVERSAL, IT IS A PROPORTIONALITY BETWEEN CONCEPTS AND INTUITIONS. THIS SUGGESTS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMON SENSE AND COMMUNICABILITY AND PRESENTS IT AS A MINIFESTATION OF MORAL WILL. LINKING BEAUTY WITH THE MORAL
Kant is really writing about are the foundations of any just politics (see e.g. sect.60). Or again, the 'freedom' of the imagination is explicitly linked by Kant to the freedom characteristic of the moral will, allowing Kant to construct a deeply rooted link between beauty and the moral (sect.59).
For Kant, the other basic type of aesthetic experience is the sublime. The sublime names experiences like violent storms or huge buildings which seem to overwhelm us; that is, we feel we 'cannot get our head around them'. This is either mainly 'mathematical' - if our ability to intuit is overwhelmed by size (the huge building) - or 'dynamical' - if our ability to will or resist is overwhelmed by force (e.g. the storm).
Kant divides the sublime into the 'mathematical' (concerned with things that have a great magnitude in and of themselves) and the 'dynamically' (things that have a magnitude of force in relation to us, particularly our will). The mathematical sublime is defined as something 'absolutely large' that is, 'large beyond all comparison' (sect.25).
Kant's solution is that, in fact, the storm or the building is not the real object of the sublime at all. Instead, what is properly sublime are ideas of reason: namely, the ideas of absolute totality or absolute freedom. However huge the building, we know it is puny compared to absolute totality; however powerful the storm, it is nothing compared to absolute freedom. The sublime feeling is therefore a kind of 'rapid alternation' between the fear of the overwhelming and the peculiar pleasure of seeing that overwhelming overwhelmed. Thus, it turns out that the sublime experience is purposive after all - that we can, in some way, 'get our head around it'.
Since the ideas of reason (particularly freedom) are also important for Kant's moral theory, there seems to be an interesting connection between the sublime and morality. This Kant discusses under the heading of 'moral culture', arguing for example that the whole sublime experience would not be possible if humans had not received a moral training that taught them to recognize the importance of their own faculty of reason. (Pluhar, Immanual Kant, Critique of Judgment).
Kant's main focus for the discussion of beauty and the sublime has been nature. He now turns to fine art. Kant assumes that the cognition involved in judging fine art is similar to the cognition involved in judging natural beauty. Accordingly, the problem that is new to fine art is not how it is judged by a viewer, but how it is created. The solution revolves around two new concepts: the 'genius' and 'aesthetic ideas'.
An aesthetic idea is a counterpart to a rational idea: where the latter is a concept that could never adequately be exhibited sensibly, the former is a set of sensible presentations to which no concept is adequate. An aesthetic idea, then, is as successful an attempt as possible to 'exhibit' the rational idea. It is the talent of genius to generate aesthetic ideas, but that is not all. First, the mode of expression must also be tasteful - for the understanding's 'lawfulness' is the condition of the expression being in any sense universal and capable of being shared. The genius must also find a mode of expression which allows a viewer not just to 'understand' the work conceptually, but to reach something like the same excited yet harmonious state of mind that the genius had in creating. (Kant).
IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH KANT ESTABLISHES THE IDEA THAT THE AESTHETIC PROCESS IS A PROCESS WHERE THE OBJECT IS THE EXPRESSION OF THE STATE OF MIND OF THE “GENIUS.” THIS LAYS THE GROUNDWORK OF THE MODERN IDEA OF EXPRESSION, THAT WHICH IS PRODUCED BY A SUBJECTIVITY.
In the judgment of the beautiful, we had a harmony between the imagination and the understanding, such that each furthered the extension of the other. Kant is now saying: certainly that is true for all judgments of taste, whether of natural or artificial objects. And yet we can distinguish between such a harmony which happens on the experiencing of a beautiful form simply, or a harmony which happens on the experiencing of a beautiful form that itself is the expression of something yet higher but that cannot in any other way be expressed. (The notion of 'expression' is important: what Kant is describing is an aesthetic process, rather than a process of understanding something with concepts, and then communicating that understanding.) Inspired fine art is beautiful, but in addition is an expression of the state of mind which is generated by an aesthetic idea. (Kant).
The Question of Taste
What is Claimed in a Kantian judgment of Taste?
What, in Kant's view, is claimed in a judgment of taste? One answer comes easily enough: what is claimed is that something—some particular object of the judging person's experience—is beautiful. Perhaps such an answer is too easy. Perhaps, indeed, it is not even correct; for what of the judgment that something is not beautiful, or the judgment that something is ugly, or the judgment that one thing is more beautiful than another: would these not also count as judgments of taste for Kant? I wish to set the question aside for the present, and consider only the case of affirmative, favorable, non-comparative judgments of taste; for in these we shall find problems enough.1
Such judgments, according to Kant, are different in kind from the common run of judgments that we pass on the objects of our experience. These are, by and large, what he calls "logical" (meaning cognitive) judgments. We make them by conjoining concepts with intuitions. Judgments of taste, by contrast, he classifies as "aesthetic" (meaning, roughly, subjective and non-cognitive) judgments. These we make by conjoining, not a concept, but a feeling of pleasure with our intuition of an object. Given this much of Kant's view, one might conclude that the answer to our question is that nothing is claimed in a judgment of taste, for such a thing, on Kant's account, does not seem to be properly a judgment at all. Yet Kant denies that judgments of taste are mere expressions of personal or private feeling. To make such a judgment, according to his account, is not merely to have a certain response to an object, but also to take one's response to be valid for all judging subjects. In this respect they do seem to have a title to the name of judgments. What is claimed in a judgment of taste, then, is what Kant terms the subjective universal validity of one's liking for an object. Borrowing a phrase from Paul Guyer, I will call this claim the claim of taste.2
To have a name for this claim, however, is not yet to have an understanding of its character and content. Several features of Kant's text make this difficult. For one, Kant uses a variety of terms to describe the status that, in a judgment of taste, one claims for one's response to an object. Besides "subjective universal validity" (or, on occasion, "universal subjective validity"), he speaks sometimes of "universal communicability," at other times of one or another kind of "necessity." It is not clear whether these terms are all meant to signify the same status or several different kinds of status. For another thing, the verbs that Kant uses to describe the way in which the person making a judgment of taste lays claim to universal agreement have been translated into English in two quite different ways. Sometimes he is made to say that we "require," "demand," or "exact" such agreement; at other times, that we "impute" or "attribute" it to others. The verbs of the first group suggest that the claim of taste is a claim to the agreement of others, or a claim about how one ought to respond to an object; the verbs of the second group suggest that it is a claim about how people do or would respond. A further source of difficulty is the fact that the "Critique of Aesthetic Judgment" seems to contain two distinct lines of argument in support of the legitimacy of judgments of taste. One argument, found in §§1-40,3 proceeds mainly in epistemological terms, while the other, found in §§41-60, proceeds in terms of the relation of taste to morality. (Miles Rind, “What is Claimed in a Kantian Judgment of Taste?” Journal of the History of Philosophy, (Johns Hopkins Press), Volume 38, Number 1, January 2000, pp. 63-64).
WITH RESPECT TO COGNITIVE JUDGMENTS AND JUDGEMENTS OF TASTE, MILES RIND ARGUES THAT JUDGMENTS OF TASTE COMBINES A FEELING OF PLEASURE WITH OUR INTUITION. HERE THE INTUITION IS THE INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCE OR INDIVIDUAL SUBJECTIVITY AND THE FEELING OF PLEASURE IS WHAT UNIVERSALIZES THE INDIVIDUAL INTUITION. THIS FEELING MOVES BEYOND THE INDIVIDUAL AND EXTENDS ALL PERSONS, WHEREAS THE INTUITION IS SINGULAR. BOTH ARE PROPERTIES OF SUJECTIVITY. WHEN COMPARING TASTE JUDGMENTS, WHAT KANT CALLS AESTHETIC, WITH COGNITIVE JUDGMENTS, THE LATTER LINKS INTUITION WITH CONCEPTS. IT IS HERE THAT CONCEPTS UNIVERSALIZES THE INTUITION. ALSO, COGNITIVE JUDGMENTS ARE RATIONAL WHEREAS TASTE JUDGMENS ARE NOT, THEY ARE BASED ON FEELING. SO, THERE IS AT NO POINT A RESPONSE TO CONCEPTS OR OBJECTS, BUT ONLY TO OUR SUBJECTIVITY. AS WE WILL SEE, THE QUESTION ARISES, HOW CAN A SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE BECOME UNIVERSAL? WHAT MAKES THE EXPERIENCE OF PLEASURE OR DISPLEASURE UNIVERSAL IS DUE TO THE IDEA THAT KANT INTRODUCES, WHICH IS COMMUNICABILITY (THE ASSENT OF OTHERS). THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION FOLLOWS.
It is a fact that any judgment of taste we make is always a singular judgment about the object. [Comparing] the object with other people’s judgment about their liking of it, [makes the judgement] universal… , e.g.: All tulips are beautiful. But such a judgment is then not a judgment of taste; it is a logical judgment, which turns an object’s reference to taste in a predicate of things of a certain general kind. Only a judgment by which I find a singular given tulip beautiful i.e., in which I find that my like for the tulip is universally valid, is a judgment of taste. HERE KANT EXPLAINS A PECULIARITY, THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL CLAIM OR JUDGMENT IT “EXTENDS IT’S CLAIMS TO ALL SUBJECTS” JUST AS IT WOULD IF IT WERE AN OBJECTIVE JUDGMENT. (PG. 148 [Ak 33]).
Lyotard, The Comparison of the Sublime and Taste. Lessons on the Analytic of the Sublime.
What is added to nature finalized aesthetically is, in short, the loss of its finality. Under the name of the Analytic of the Sublime, a denatured aesthetic, or, better, an aesthetic of denaturing, breaks the proper order of the natural aesthetic and suspends the function it assusmes the project of unification. What awakens the “intellectual feeling” (Geistergefuhl: 33; 29) the sublime, is not nature which is an artist in forms and the work of forms, but rather magnitude, force, quantity in it purest state, a “presence” that exceeds what imaginative thought can grasp at once in a form—what it can form.
The “mere appendage” to the critical elaboration of the aesthetic by natural finality thus takes a menacing turn. It indicates that another aesthetic can be not only expounded but “deduced” according to the rules of the critique. This other aesthetic appears to be “contra-final” (zweckwidrig: 92; 88). The feeling that is analyzed is indeed aesthetic, for it immediately informs thinking of its “subjective” state. But the quality of the “state” of thoughts is provided by pure quantities that defy the imagination.
A negative aesthetic, one might say. But the word is vague. Taste is also negative; it denies understanding the capacity to resolve in concepts the feeling of the beautiful and the judgments that constitute it. The Analytic of the Beautiful proceeds according to the categories but can never get to the bottom of taste by categories alone; it must partially deny their power. The sublime denies the imagination the power of forms and denies nature the power to immediately affect thinking with forms. (Lyotard, Pgs. 53-54)
IT IS HERE THAT KANT ESTABLISHES TWO TYPES OF AESTHETICS, BEAUTY AND THE SUBLIME. AND IN SECTION 2 OF THE ANALYTIC OF THE SUBLIME, KANT REMARKS THAT THE SUBLIME IS A REFLECTIVE JUDGMENT OF THE OBJECT AND THAT IT IS BASED IN RATIONALISM NOT SENSUALITY. I AM CONSIDERING HERE BOTH THE JUDGMENT OF THE BEAUTIFUL AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUBLIME, WHERE IN THE SUBLIME WE HAVE THE JUDGMENT OF OBJECTS, NOT FORMS, ONE BASED IN REASON. IT IS THROUGH REASON (MATHEMATICAL SUBLIIME) THAT WE ACCESS THE SUBLIME AESTHETIC.
“The sublime is (subjectively) contra purposive because our imagination tries to apprehend the object of vast magnitude but fails. (Translator’s Intro, Critique of Judgment, Immanual Kant, Werner Pluhar, (Indiana: Hackett Publishers), lxx). …in judgments about the sublime “it is not the object itself that is judged to be purposive (AK. 246) …[but what is purposive is the] relation of the cognitive powers” (Ak. 280)., i.e., imagination in relation to reason and our moral vocation, the exposition (analysis) of these judgments is at the same time their deduction.
THIS SHOWS THAT THE JUDGMENTS OF THE SUBLIME ARE MADE THROUGH REASON. HERE AN AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE INVOLVES REASON. AND BY THIS “MAN” DEMONSTRATES “HIS” ABILITY TO HAVE MORAL JUDGMENTS.
Here the link justifies the claim of judgments about the sublime to universal validity, on the (legitimate) presupposition that man does in fact have moral feeling (AK. 266).
JUDGMENTS OF TASTE WITH RESPECT TO THE BEAUTIFUL ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE JUDGMENT OF TASTE WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBLIME. JUDGMENTS OF BEAUTY DO NOT INVOLVE REASON. JUDGMENTS OF BEAUTY INVOLVE THE UNDERSTANDING WHEREAS JUDGMENTS OF THE SUBLIME INVOLVES OBJECTS AND CONCEPTS, IT OPERATES IN CULTURE. THE UNDERSTANDING IS THE CAPACITY TO MAKE JUDGMENTS OF BEAUTY, NOT THE DETERMINATION OF AN OBJECT THAT IS BEAUTIFUL. THE SUBLIME INVOLVES JUDGMENTS OF OBJECTS, OR THE REFLECTION UPON OBJECTS AND ITS UNIVERSALITY IS DETERMINED BY THE SENSE OF MORALITY CREATED BY THE SUBLIME EXPERIENCE.
KANT ARGUES THAT THE FACULTY OF JUDGMENTS DETERMINES ITS UNIVERSALITY, THIS IS THE CASE BOTH WITH THE BEAUTIFUL AND THE SUBLIME. THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE SUBLIME IS A JUDGMENT OF OBJECTS, BUT IN THIS CASE AN OBJECT CAN BE JUDGED SUBLIMELY. THAT IS, THERE IS A UNIVERSALIZING FACULTY THAT JUDGES OBJECTS, WHICH CHALLENGES US BECAUSE THE OBJECT IS UNDERSTOOD AS A CONCEPT. IT IS THE CONTEXT OF SIZE OR INCOMPREHENSIBILITY THAT PRODUCES THE SUBLIME EXPERIENCE, NOT THE OBJECT.
A JUDGMENT OF TASTE IS SUBJECTIVE.
The subjective condition of all judgments is our very ability to judge, i.e., the power of judgment. When we use this power of judgment in regard to a presentation by which an object is given, then it requires that there be harmony between two presentational powers, imagination (for the intuition and the combination of its manifold) and understanding (for the concept that is the presentation of the unity of this combination). (Pg 151).
KANT POINTS OUT THAT TASTES OPERATES UNIVERSALLY BY THE LINKING OF INTUITION AND CONCEPTS. BUT HE POINTS OUT THAT IT IS NOT A MATTER OF PARTICULAR INTUITIONS OR PARTICULAR CONCEPTS, IT IS UNDER WHAT HE CALLS THE POWER OF INTUITIONS AND THE POWER OF CONCEPTS, WHICH MEANS THE A PRIORI FACULTY THAT EXISTS IN ALL PERSONS.
Taste, as a subjective power of judgment, contains a principle of subsumption.
Now since the judgment of taste is not based on a concept of the object (in the case of a presentation by which an object is given), it can consist only in the subsumption of the very imagination under the condition [which must be met] for the understanding to proceed in general from intuition to concepts. (Ibid).
THIS SUBSUMPTION LINKS INTUITION AND CONCEPTS (THE REALM OF LOGIC). IT IS THE POWER OF OUR JUDGMENT, THE POWER TO JUDGE IS DIFFERENT FROM ANY INSTANCE OF IT. WHEN WE JUDGE AN OBJECT VIS A VIS TASTE, THE JUDGMENT IS UNIVERSAL TO THE EXTENT THAT WE EMPLOY OUR FACULTY OF JUDGMENT. WHAT’S IMPORTANT HERE IS THAT WE ARE NOT DETERMINING IF SOMETHING IS BEAUTIFUL BECAUSE OF THE OBJECT ITSELF, IT IS DETERMINED BY OUR POWERS OF JUDGMENT. WE CAN TELL IF THIS IS NOT A JUDGMENT INVOLVING OUR INTUITIONS AND IMAGINATION IF THERE ARE RULES THAT MIGHT REGULATE THAT JUDGMENT.
The problem of a deduction of judgments of taste; (We can think of this problem as follows): How is a judgment possible in which the subject, merely on the basis of his own feeling of pleasure in an object, independently of the objects’ concept, judges this pleasure as one attaching to the presentation of that same object in all other subjects, and does so a priori, i.e., without being allowed to wait for other people’s assent?
We can readily see that judgments of taste are synthetic; for they go beyond the concept of the object, and even beyond the intuition of the object, and add as a predicate to this intuition something that is not even cognition: namely [a] feeling of pleasure (or displeasure). …this problem of the critique of judgment is part of the general problem of transcendental philosophy: How are synthetic judgments possible a priori? (Kant, Critique of Judgment, Pg. 131).
AT THIS POINT CERTAIN THINGS ARE ESTABLISHED, THAT AESTHETIC JUDGMENTS ARE SYNTHETIC JUDGMENTS AND THAT THEY INVOLVE NOT ONLY THE INTUITION OF THE OBSERVER BUT THE SOCIAL SPACE OF THAT INTUITION WHICH KANT ADDRESSES AS THE “ASSENT OF OTHERS.” THE QUESTION REMAINS, HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE IN AESTHETICS?
Thomas Eagleton says about this, “There is a way of viewing Nature such that the apparent lawfulness of its forms might at least suggest the possibility of ends in nature which is in accordance with the ends of human freedom. It is possible to look at the world as though it were itself a mysterious sort of subject or artefact, governed like human subjects by a self-determining rational will. In the aesthetic and teleological modes of judgment, as presented in the Critique of Judgment, the empirical world appears in its freedom, purposiveness, significant totality and self-regulating autonomy to conform to the ends of practical reason. …. The pleasure of the aesthetic is in part the surprise that this is the case. (Terry Eagleton, The Ideology of the Aesthetic, p 84).
IN AESTHETIC JUDGMENT THE EMPIRICAL WORLD APPEARS PURPOSIVE. BUT THIS PURPOSIVENESS IS NOT DEDUCED FROM CONCEPTS OR LOGICAL PREMISES
THE PROBLEM THEN IS TO ASSURE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF PLEASURE, WHICH IS SUBJECTIVE, IS THE SAME IN ALL PERSONS IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE UNIVERSAL AND THAT THIS IDEA OF SUBJECTIVITY IS A PRIORI. ON PAGE 155 THE TRANSLATOR SAYS IN A FOOTNOTE THAT ONE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT IT IS A PRIORI IS MET WHEN WE CONSIDER THAT WE CAN COMMUNICATE THROUGH ITS PRESENTATION TO OTHERS. WITH RESPECT TO THE QUESTION “IS THE SENSATION I EXPERIENCE THE SAME ONE THAT IS EXPERIENCED BY OTHERS?” RATHER THAN PROVING THIS BY ESTABLISHING THE ORIGINS OF THE SENSATION IN THE WORLD, A PROPERTY PRODUCED BY AN OBJECT, KANT ARGUES THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO PROVE THAT THE SENSATION IS THE SAME, ONLY THAT THE EXPECTATION OF COMMUNICABILITY ACCOMPANIES THE SENSATION. THIS EXPECTATION IS SECURED BY THE IDEA THAT THE PROCESS OR STRUCTURE OF AESTHETIC JUDGMENTS MIRROR THOSE OF RATIONAL JUDGMENTS. IN AESTHETIC JUDGMENT THE LIKING OF THE OBJECT IS A PROPERTY OF THE EXPERIENCE OF BEAUTY.
KANT SAYS ABOUT THIS:
This pleasure must of necessity rest on the same conditions in everyone, because they are subjective conditions for the possibility of cognition as such, and because the proportion between these cognitive powers that is required for taste is also required for the sound and common understanding that we may presuppose in everyone. That is precisely why someone who judges with taste (provided he is not mistaken in this consciousness and does not mistake the matter for the form, i.e., charm for beauty) is entitled to require the subjective purposiveness, i.e, his liking for the object, from everyone else as well, and is entitled to assume that his feeling is universally communicable, and this without any mediation by concepts. (Kant p. 159).
HENCE THIS SENSE OF PURPOSIVENESS IS DERIVED FROM JUDGMENT ITSELF, WHICH PRESUPPOSES A COMMON UNDERSTANDING EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT BASED IN OBJECTS OR CONCEPTS. AESTHETIC JUDGMENT IS A TYPE OF JUDGMENT BASED IN OUR FEELINGS AND NOT OBJECTS OR CONCEPTS BUT THAT OPERATES AS IF IT WE WERE RESPONDING TO OBJECTS AND CONCEPTS. EAGLETON CALLS THIS A FANTASY OF THE MATERIAL WORLD. (EAGLETON P. 86).
TASTE AND ‘COMMON SENSE.’ ON PAGE 61 WE FIND KANT’S ARGUMENT THAT ESTABLISHES THE JUDGMENT OF TASTE AS SYNTHETIC, SINCE IT INVOLVES LOCATING ONE’S EXPERIENCE WITHIN A DOMAIN OF THE EXPERIENCE OF OTHERS. THIS IS DEFINED BY ME AS COMMON UNDERSTANDING, OR THE SPACE OF OTHERS, BEING MADE UNIVERSAL BASED ON WHAT WE SAID ABOUT EXPECTATION BEING A FACULTY THAT UNIVERSALIZES SENSE EXPERIENCE.