Compare and contrast ideas from Reading #4 “Romaine Lourquet” by John Berger with ideas from Reading #3 “Kant and the Aesthetic Imagination” by Michael Podro.
You may refer to ideas from the in class group presentations on M 3/02 and to your individual written response for Reading #3: “Kant and the Aesthetic Imagination” by Michael Podro.
*At least 250 words.
when writing reading responses, it is imperative to abide by the
school’s policy regarding plagiarism. Even paraphrasing sentences in a
manner that is too close to the original text is considered plagiarism.( please cite and give credits)
Kant and the Aesthetic Imagination
According to the article titled “Kant and the Aesthetic Imagination” by Michael Podro, ideas
come about depending on how people use their interdependence towards their experiences
with nature to entertain various thoughts. Consequently, these ideas are notions that are
varied and go beyond what is perceived as sensible. They can be ideas of immortality, human
freedom, and God, among others (Podro, 2003). These ideas rely on one’s interdependence
on how he/she perceives the world from a broader perspective than him/herself.
Artists make meaning based on three aspects of imaginative freedom. First, there is the
perception of independence towards something. Second, there is the perception of being
relieved of specific constraints. Finally, there is the notion of imaginative freedom between
an object and the mind (Podro, 2003). Based on these three sources, it is clear that the ideas
of a particular individual originate from how he/she exercises his/her imagination. Ideas are
crafted by how one constructs something in his/her mind based on his/her experiences.
Finally, the philosophies of Kant and Podro correspond to cultural critique by attempting to
give an explanation of the concept of beauty and how the perception of aesthetics arise within
individuals. Generally, cultural criticism refers to how one views something, it is the
examination of diverse things based on how they are created and interpreted. This
interpretation is subject to how a specific individual interacts with his/her environment, and
how the same environment has shaped his/her thoughts. Consequently, two people’s opinions
about something can be totally different from each other. Podro (2003) notes that judgment
about something is simply a reflection of an object that relies on the scope of its engagement.
Hence, the critique of something will tend to differ from person to person.
Reference
Podro, M. (2003). Kant and the aesthetic imagination. Art and Thought, 51-70.