Resumo: O ensaio a seguir tematiza o livro Viagem à Itália, no qual J. W. Goethe relata o período passado em território italiano, nos anos de 1786 e 1787. Procuro contextualizar essa viagem na vida e na carreira do escritor, servindo-me, para isso, especialmente de um texto sobre ele escrito por Walter Benjamin. Comento as observações de Goethe sobre a natureza, ligadas a suas pesquisas científicas, mas meu principal interesse são as observações sobre a arte e sobre a Antiguidade. Nestas, (...) identifico não só a importante influência do historiador da arte J. J. Winckelmann, como também a orientação para o classicismo, algo que marcaria a produção artística de Goethe a partir daquele período passado em território italiano.: The following paper discusses the book Italian Journey, in which J. W. Goethe described his travels in Italian territory in the years 1786 and 1787. I try to contextualize this journey within the writer’s life and career, referring especially to a text by Walter Benjamin. I comment on Goethe’s remarks on nature, which are linked to his scientific researches, but my main interest is in his remarks on art and classical antiquity. In these remarks, I recognize the important influence of the art historian J. J. Winckelmann and also a tendency toward classicism, something which defined Goethe’s artistic production from the time of his Italian travels onward. (shrink)

Can Kant’s theory of fine art serve as a theory of modern art? It all depends on what ‘modern’ means. The word can mean current or contemporary, indexed to the time of use, and in that sense the answer is yes: Kant’s theory of genius implies that successful art is always to some extent novel, so there should always be something that counts as contemporary art on his theory. But ‘modern’ can also be used adjectively, perhaps more properly as ‘modernist’, (...) to refer to art of a particular moment, in some cases superseded by postmodern art. Kant’s theory is not a theory of modernist art in at least one prominent form, the formalism of Clement Greenberg. But other theories, such as those of George Dickie and Arthur Danto, although triggered by particular works of modernist art and meant to accommodate them, were meant to be theories of what art was always doing, and Kant’s is too. In that sense it can be considered a modern theory of art but not a theory of modern art. (shrink)

Is tragedy, as Nietzsche declared, dead? In recent years many philosophers have reconsidered tragedy's relation to philosophy. While tragedy is deemed to contain important lessons for philosophy, there is a consensus that it remains a thing of the past. This article calls this consensus into question, arguing that it reifies tragedy, keeping tragedy at arm's length. With the interest of identifying the necessity of tragedy to philosophy, it draws from Quentin Skinner to put forward an alternative approach to genre as (...) living form. This approach alters our understanding of the philosopher at the heart of philosophy's dialogue with tragedy, Immanuel Kant. Moreover, it shows that tragedy is closer to contemporary philosophy than we might think. (shrink)