Aesthetic Judgment There have been two main questions about aesthetic judgments in contemporary analytic aesthetics. One is how to differentiate aesthetic judgments from other sentences. Answering this question seems urgent when an aesthetic decision and a nonaesthetic judgment about the same object are incongruent. In such a case, a thing might have aesthetic value and be negatively judged, say ethically or in terms of its practical use. A corollary question is whether the harmful matter of a nonaesthetic judgment should affect the allegedly purely aesthetic decision.
Namely, an intersubjective pleasure, one of purely personal pleasure, is Useless satisfaction detached from interests in the object.
The disadvantages of the procedures based on evidence judgments, especially in art education contexts, are apparent: It is less the objectivity of the assessment than the lack of transparency, the non-justification of the included in the considerations in this evaluation process.
The so-called evidence judgment. The teacher views a student’s work. The resulting impression is condense into an evaluation, a final grade, in a short time. “It’s an emotional, holistic look coupled with a reflection on the teacher’s intentions.” (Heiner 1985, p. 338) The evidence judgment is often modified so that the class record is first sorted into three piles: good, mediocre and no longer mediocre (Fig.). Reinhard Pfennig divided “three roughly equal value groups.
A legitimation for this method can find in Kant’s philosophy. Anesthetic judgment is, therefore, always a judgment of taste. In his essay “Critique of Judgment” (1790), Immanuel Kant attempted to prove that aesthetic judgment is an indispensable prerequisite for understanding art. Kant discusses the problem mainly. For example, the intuition by a still image is connect with the general, namely the aesthetic norms. In other words, we apply aesthetic standards to specific aesthetic phenomena, for example. We do nothing else “unconsciously” in.
In contrast to judgments relate to knowledge, however, according to Kant, an aesthetic judgment cannot be trace back to objective determining factors. “The judgment of sensitivity is therefore not a cognitive judgment, and therefore not logical, but aesthetic, by which one understands that whose determining factor can only be subjective.” (Kant 1790) But at the same time, it goes beyond subjectivity: We are claiming that other people will feel what we experience as the reason for our judgment when looking at this work.
In an oral trial, the evidence presentation process is a judicial activity use in a test to verify the integrity of the facts present in litigation as evidence and determine the value that the evidence should have in practice.
Aesthetic judgments = judgments of taste = individual judgments that claim subjective universal validity; its content is the aesthetic value of an object, i.e. a relation of the same to the viewing subject.
Binance has developed a bot called Binance DCA Bot that boosts your chances of making… Read More
A newly worm written In golangbased turns windows and linux servers into miners of the… Read More