Abstract
Mariah MacGregor
8.9.10
I am writing my paper defending the possibility that there is no true re-definition of the Kantian Sublime. Instead, I will argue that the original definition has been misinterpreted and contemporary art that uses (or is given) the description “Sublime” actually does fit into Kant’s original theory.
To do this I will use artists such as Ingrid Bachmann, Andreas Gursky and Laura Splan. I will use primary source material from Kant as well as contemporary writers on the Sublime such as Bonnie Mann and Jean-François Lyotard. I might find that this argument raises questions that I cannot answer, but that I will leave open.
After arguing that there is no “new” Sublime, Feminine or otherwise, I will argue that the true opposite of the Sublime in contemporary art is Relational Aesthetics. Relational Aesthetics is more in line with John Dewey’s idea that art is an experience, or it enhances experience (such as using a beautiful tool instead of a plain tool). Kant required a certain objective distance to achieve aesthetic judgment that is impossible in an interactive experience like most relational aesthetic work.
Though I am offering a contemporary antithesis to Kant’s Sublime it is still solidifying the argument that the original Kantian definition holds true today because that is what the Relational Aesthetics artists are rebelling against with this work.
