At the end of §40 of the Critique of Judgement, after a discussion of the sensus communis and its connection with taste, Kant writes:If we could assume that the mere universal communicability as such of our feeling must already carry with it an interest for us , then we could explain how it is that we require from everyone as a duty, as it were , the feeling in a judgment of taste.

The first part of the following text does make the map of an answer to the question of knowing if and how it is possible to speak of beautiful art in the context of Immanuel Kant’s Critique of the Power of Judgment. There is an appeal to the conditions of the freedom of the imagination, to an interpretation of representation as exemplification and to a reference to aesthetic purposes and constraints. This way it will be made evident it is possible (...) to think the judgment by means of which one declares a work of art a beautiful one as a pure judgment of taste and the artistic beauty as free beauty. Starting from a reflection on what it does mean to speak of aesthetic purposes and constraints, it will be put at stake, in the second part of the text, the univocity of meaning of the notion of taste in Kant’s third Critique. Perhaps in the case of the pure judgment of taste by means of which one declares a work of art a beautiful one it is mandatory to appeal not only to taste as aesthetic power of judgment, but to another taste: a corpus which is narrowly connected with the mechanical, compulsory and academic side of beautiful art. (shrink)

Kant needs to deduction in order to provide for universal and necessary validity of aesthetic judgment in the critique of judgment. In the deduction sections, He wants a reply to this question: how can a singular judgment be universally valid for everyone? In other words, how can the aesthetic judgment which basically is subjective, claim universal validity? Some of the Kant’s commentators believe that Kant’s deduction which expresses in the formal sections is unsuccessful and then they by the connecting of (...) the beauty with morality want to provide an objective base for the aesthetic judgment. They aimed to explain the universal validity of the judgments. This essay first express deduction, then crisis the moral interpretation of Kant’s deduction. It seems that believe in a moral point of view in the deduction’s topic neglect the autonomy of aesthetic judgments and arises hetoronoum judgments. (shrink)