About Critique of Judgment

Kant in his Critique of Judgment is looking to support the aesthetic; it is something out of
knowledge and morality, as something special. The aesthetic judgment, according to
Kant, leaves in place that exists outside freely and is dictated by the pleasure that is expected
to achieve the object as such, apart from anything else because the object has its objective in
itself. This places the aesthetic judgment in an independent position, the object is based on
a concept, but it is directly related to the feeling on the subject. But in addition it
does disinterest, aesthetic satisfaction has no interest, in contrast to
other trials, only pleasure in the contemplation. Until such time that Kant tries to find a
principle for aesthetics, to be independent, no one had ever raised this task. Art was
simply a problem of knowledge or morality, but never anything that could flow through
itself. Here is where the importance that Kant has in aesthetics.
Judgments of taste are synthetic a priori because they establish a relationship between
representation and the subject's emotional state and character of disinterestedness and
universality claim so they certified it.
According to Kant aesthetic judgments express a way of feeling things so the a priori
aesthetic is the a priori of the idea, the purpose. The aesthetic is objective, does not see
objects, it doesnt conceived natural purposes; the subject is the state of mind is a subjective
purpose. The aesthetic is a purpose without any concept. Not concerned with the concept of
the object, which is the cause of the existence of the object. Is not intended to be looking
at how nice and helpful, because it looks for a particular purpose and interest that makes us
desire the object. Is not good in itself, because it is a concept that determines the ethical
judgment. Therefore, a purpose for aesthetic purposes is endless. The beautiful, art is
neither good nor useful, nor evil, nor is it a trade or a device, etc. However it has a
purpose and spirit and free play. The aesthetic consciousness relates to itself, all of
it, without divisions, or determinism, so it is finality without end.
Thus, the aesthetic judgment is based on the feeling and this feeling is his debut in the idealism
of purpose.
The aesthetic judgment is a value judgment, so different, not only the existence but also
judgments of the other axiological judgments, but while this is no satisfaction of a desire or
correspondence with the moral will, the adaptation of the beautiful with the subject, in
aesthetic judgment, for which we find something beautiful, no satisfaction, but welcome
gain. The disinterest characterized the aesthetic attitude in the same sense in which the game
is purely disinterested activity, complacency no useful purpose or moral. So the aesthetic is
independent and cannot serve any purpose other than to him. The beauty is not recognized
as an absolute value, but is only related to the subject. The priority of aesthetic

judgment requires, despite its reference to the subject of the detachment in this regard is
alien to disinterest and purpose without end.
Once summarized what is aesthetic judgment in Kant, the question to answer would be: is it
for Kant nature, the natural aesthetic?
According to Kant, although the imagination creates other natures, other worlds for aesthetic
contemplation, these are fed by the nature. The feeling that objectify and call beauty,
sublimity, etc. It cannot contain anything other than nature and morality.
The product should look like art, Kant says, a natural product and natural product should look
like a beautiful art product. The aesthetic feeling cannot have more actual content nature
and morality. The art must conform to nature and modern man, nature, often exceeds
the aesthetic beauty and splendor to the most refined and brilliant art.
In paragraph forty-five of the Critique of Judgment Kant: when nature was beautiful at the
same time seemed to be art, and art cannot be called beautiful only when, seeing we realize
that art, yet it seems nature. For Kant, nature is a fundamental principle of beauty, the
aesthetic, indeed, believes that it is able to take an immediate interest in the beauty of nature;
it has a good soul, and is willing to have a spirit favorable to moral feeling. This superiority
of the natural beauty of the art, that is, even when he shall overcome this by the way, only to
awaken an immediate interest, consistent with the most refined and profound way of
thinking of all men who have cultivated their sense moral (paragraph 42).
Furthermore, nature is no coincidence as art, but designedly, as under the law and intended
to endless, and so it is not external, it is not outside of man, but we seek within
ourselves, moral determination.
Kant makes clear because fine art is not united in our immediate interest as is the
beautiful nature and this is because art is an imitation of nature that comes to the illusion
(natural beauty) or is an art designed to our satisfaction.
In Kant nature has an important role in aesthetics, it would not be possible without art,
because man creates, and makes art from what is immediately beautiful nature.
The thought is mixed and is carried away by nature while the pleasure and enjoyment are
justified, being that nature and freedom, sensitivity and concept, are in Kant, at the same
level have the same rights and are a unit indissoluble.
In contrast to Kant, Hegel believed that art beauty is more than natural beauty, because it is a
product of mind. To exceed the spirit of nature, its superiority is communicated, transferred to
their products. Anything that looks strange or negative, if the spirit is involved, the better and
higher than any product of nature.
The beautiful art takes its superiority to the fact that part of the spirit, and, consequently, of
the truth, so that what exists, exists only in so far as it owes its existence to what is superior
and not to which is in itself, and only has what you have, thanks to what is superior. Only the

spiritual is real. Natural beauty is just a reflection of the spirit. It's just beautiful to the extent
that part of the spirit.
According to Hegel the relationship between art and nature is not simple neighborhood is
beautiful as only that which finds expression in art, as far as creation of the mind. Natural
beauty does not deserve this name rather than as part of the spirit that is related to it.
Hegel says that when man mimics nature in art all I get is to offer a caricature of life. What
value has the play things we see daily around us? This can only produce the appearance of
reality.
The purpose of imitating nature is to recreate, to demonstrate a skill that can copy most
perfectly what is being observed. It seeks to imitates God, source of creation. This can
only cause a momentary satisfaction and then boredom. The man will find more
satisfaction when you play something that was his; something intimate that he could only say:
this is just mine, not an imitation. The man best shows his skill making things that are born of
the spirit if not in the imitation of nature.
Assuming that the purpose of art is the imitation of what already exists is to deprive the art of
their freedom, their power to express beauty.
Wanting to reproduce nature in art is subjective, is self-interest, personal show a skill and
dexterity to do it and ignores the objective value of what you want to play. By imitating the
man did not pass the limits of natural, while the content should be of spiritual nature.
Hegel believes that man should be set in nature to learn what is apparent of it, the colors,
light, etc. To be able to then translate those contrasts of light, the shadows on the canvas.
When art was arbitrary and decay times were no movements to return to naturalism.
Hegel thinks of it, that these trends are commendable, naturalism can never be the substantial
basis of art, and if this should be natural in their intentions and inclinations, never must adhere
strictly to the mere representation if external nature, imitating perfectly, since the purpose of
art is another.
The natural thing should not be the rule, the supreme law of artistic representation. And
pretend that the content of a work, while content is taken from nature, is to pretend that the
imitation of nature is the end of art and this is a mistake. Art must have the purpose of purely
formal imitation of what exists; imitation cannot give birth rather than technical devices, which
have nothing in common with a work of art.
Object under the aspect of the artwork is not. Is the work of art because it is spiritual, because
it has received the baptism of the spirit, and represents something that partakes of
the spirit, which is an attribute of the spirit. The superiority of the art work is,
how natural, though endowed with life, perishes, and the work of art endures for being
impregnated with spirit.
Human interest, the spiritual value of an event, an event in their evolution and
determination, are captured by the artwork, which makes them emerge in a more pure
and transparent than current reality. For this work of art is superior to any product of

nature have not made this step by the spirit. All that belongs to the spirit is superior to what
exists in nature.
The things of nature are content to be, while the man possessing consciousness unfolds: he is
once, but for himself. Thus while man is discovered internally, becomes aware of
himself, realizes that is related to the world and try to change yourself, try to change the world
as part of him that is intended to give the world his trademark. Through external things is to
find himself, why not content himself as Nature has done and tries by means of spiritual
culture enhance its value.
Man, through art, art work, its author, tries to unfold, externalized, hence the need for man
to create art.