Vibeke Jensen exhibited in "Symbolsk Orden" Rogaland Kunstmuseum

These have been days filled with aesthetic theory, though not very much Kant. I have enjoyed reading, amongst others, Carolyn Korsmeyer on “feminist aesthetics” and Griselda Pollock’s Vision and Difference. I find Pollocks book intelligent, provocative and good for speeding off own thoughts. I am reading quite heavily in this field right now due to some lectures I’m going to deliver in May, but here are lots more to be done in this field. I think I at least will have to write my own book on the subject …

I wonder, is it a good idea to start conceptualizing a new aesthetic theory in the middle of a PhD on language deviances in psychosis?
1. Yes – this will most certainly enlarge your horizon…
2. No, the horizon is nothing but a horizon, and anyway – it’s already large enough

to kant

Reading more poststructuralist theory than Kantian philosophy these days - some questions seems necessary to post:
1. Can aesthetic judgement be anything more than a construction based in the language in which it is articulated, a discursive practice?
2. Is there a subject who can have a privileged access to a transcendent realm of aesthetic judgement?
3. Is aesthetic value an effect of different practices and institutions, rather than something caused by artworks?
4. Is it a good idea to start questioning Kant without even having read him properly?
5. Is it possible to read Kant today?
6. Is it meaningful?



What seems clear is that you have to relate the discussion of aesthetics to a discussion on self and subjectivity. The status one gives to the subjective self is of great importance to any debate of (im)possible aesthetic judgement.