The Sublime

Let me ask a question:

What is 'the sublime', and what does Immanuel Kant say about it?

I tried to read Kant's Critique of Judgement, but I found it to be just as unreadable as his other Critiques. File a lawsuit against me, but I have nary an idea what he's talking about.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go for a walk.

Pablo Secca

A Painter

Here is the best definition of the Kantian Sublime I have found to date:

'Kant defines sublimity as the capacity of certain phenomena to evoke an awareness of our supersensible self. Vast and destructive natural phenomena (*mathematically* and *dynamically* sublime respectively) overwhelm our ability to comprehend them at the level of ordinary perception and imagination and so evoke a feeling of inhibition and pain. But the failure and inadequacy of our cognitive faculties at the sensible level serves only to stimulate the employment of rational comprehension. The phenomenal totality of cast items, and immense destructiveness, can be comprehended as an idea - i.e.. in rational terms at the level of thought. This leads primarily to insights concerning our existence as rational beings. These insights have, at the same time, a fundamentally moral import. They exemplify our rational self-sufficiency and superiority over nature. In the final analysis, it s this rational/moral faculty which is absolutely sublime. ' Mojca Oblak_The Possibility of the Sublime_

I am assuming that having read Kant you are familiar with the terms used so haven't explained them. Let me know if this helps or not.

Don't forget to take a line with you. Alison

Hello, Alison...

That's quite a definition. It sheds light. I seem to remember having read someone's thoughts on the Sublime long ago, but I was vaguely unfamiliar with the terminology, etc., and after a bit, the words lost their meaning and became nonsignifying: a lot of letters that were fun to read, but meant about as much as the paper they were written on.

Now,...

I more or less think I understand what the 'supersensible self' is. Is knowledge of this characterized by a dim awareness, or, perhaps a simple recognition of the supersensible self's existence, recognized only at a cold, rational distance? Perhaps what I'm asking is whether this knowledge can be empirical... I suppose, the very words tells me: 'super'-sensible would seem to imply that empirical knowledge is impossible... But this is where I become unfirm. I am unsure whether I quite grasp the concept of the 'supersensible self.'

Now, then...

Cast items? Rookie am I, that's a new one on me.

I see clearly what the insights are, but I question whether they have this 'fundamentally' moral import. Does he say that such insights as these 'bring in' moral systems or 'are important to' moral systems? A funny double-take on the word 'import.'

Furthermore, he says they (the insights)...

Is this superiority and self-sufficiency the source of this moral aspect ('morality' of the Sublime? When Oblak says 'moral,' does he refer to the responsibilities of humanity's role or place in regards to nature?

I can't shake the feeling that I may be riding a different rail than you.

Pablo Secca

Post note: for my sake, analyze this: I watch a thunderstorm roll across a plain, or looking at an enormous painting of one. What would Kant say about these in regards to the

Hello, Alison...

That's quite a definition. It sheds light. I seem to remember having read someone's thoughts on the Sublime long ago, but I was vaguely unfamiliar with the terminology, etc., and after a bit, the words lost their meaning and became nonsignifying: a lot of letters that were fun to read, but meant about as much as the paper they were written on.

Now,...

I more or less think I understand what the 'supersensible self' is. Is knowledge of this characterized by a dim awareness, or, perhaps a simple recognition of the supersensible self's existence, recognized only at a cold, rational distance? Perhaps what I'm asking is whether this knowledge can be empirical... I suppose, the very words tells me: 'super'-sensible would seem to imply that empirical knowledge is impossible... But this is where I become unfirm. I am unsure whether I quite grasp the concept of the 'supersensible self.'

Now, then...

Cast items? Rookie am I, that's a new one on me.

I see clearly what the insights are, but I question whether they have this 'fundamentally' moral import. Does he say that such insights as these 'bring in' moral systems or 'are important to' moral systems? A funny double-take on the word 'import.'

Furthermore, he says they (the insights)...

Is this superiority and self-sufficiency the source of this moral aspect ('morality' of the Sublime? When Oblak says 'moral,' does he refer to the responsibilities of humanity's role or place in regards to nature?

I can't shake the feeling that I may be riding a different rail than you.

Pablo Secca

Post note: for my sake, analyze this: I watch a thunderstorm roll across a plain, or looking at an enormous painting of one. What would Kant say about these in regards to the

Be careful. Marilyn doesn't allow them.

John John Haber

All right:

Oblak:

Me:

You:

Well put, but I still don't see to see how this superiority over nature serves as such an important part of our moral structure. Do these moral systems arise out of some sort of responsibility or/of place? Does this knowledge lead to morals (I would think not) or just play a part in the system that one holds?

Right.

Pablo Secca

Hi Pablo.

I had plenty of time yesterday to think about Kant while I was away from the computer, and as usual, all my conclusions are a blur this morning. They really ought to build computers into the steering wheels An artist friend of mine just revealed that he has a masters in philosophy and warned me not to attempt any explanation of Kant. Good advise. I don't think one should ever try and *explain* a philosopher, but rather to enquire into what he is saying as a means of expanding our thoughts - don't you ?

So many of our ideas on the sublime in art have been formed from Kant's writings, it would be irresponsible not to try and interpret what he was saying, though I think many other philosophers made a much better job of discussing the subject - particularly Edmund Burke in *A philosophical enquiry into the sublime and beautiful*.

Above all its imperative to place the writings in the context of when they were written and the social structure in place at that time. To pluck from them and translate into modern day thinking may not often work - which I think is why Kant fails to grab us these days (that and his persistence to try and say the same thing in one hundred different ways).

My inquiry is based on this mistranslation, particularly Barnett Newman's adoption of the term, and to try and identify what today's modern day sublime is.

I promised John Haber some remarks on his essay on the subject later today - if time permits. Maybe you could join us ?

Best regards.

Alison

I agree, more or less. Kant is an explanation of Kant is an explanation of Kant... You Kant get any clearer than that (no, I could not resist).

Sure, sure... but make sure the words are known to us as well... (I see and hear all these complaints about lingo... Complaining about occupational parlance seems a bit trendy and hip, nowadays... There are accusations flying about how one can hide behind terms... can speak nonsense, and get away with it, and we'll all just nod. This is true to a point, but words and terms are a wonderful way of getting thoughts out into the world, and this in turn queue's and cue's the brain up, letting more thought pass. I suppose in delving in any sort of thing (art, philsophy, law) there is a self-serving requirement to get to know the 'slang' because plain English is at times just that.)

I agree. Good way of putting it. I cannot restate that.

Not so irresponsible as silly.

What a humourous thing

remind us to keep looking at writings in the context of when they were written, and to recognise out inability to translate across times and cultures. What I am interested in - and am basing my MFA thesis on - is the idea of the sublime and our inability to comprehend the term. That means looking at the changes in perceptions and how and what has affected them.

That's one I would like to throw into the forum and find out what people think. A cyber friend (from one of the arts lists I subscribe to), is visiting London from New York at the moment - he kindly treated me to the Renaissance Florence exhibition at the National Gallery today. What struck me the most, in between battling with the crowds to get to view the work, was the realisation that today we have lost the ability to focus on detail. I can't help feeling there may be something in this that relates to our experiences of the sublime. He and I discussed this in some depth - including the crowds around the work that made it impossible to become absorbed in the actual art.

Well, as a pourer of paint I end up swimming in the stuff .... its pure bliss... enjoy the sensuality of the materials

Definitely, a lot of good criticism and philosophy involves re-inserting ideas, books, and art into their histories. Things can come out more limited that way (as after some feminist criticism) but also, of course, newly accessible (as after iconology).

The point I'm making applies to LOTS of things that aspire to entirely timeless significance, such as religious art. Sometimes the historical context for what aspire to universal truths jumps out at people of its own accord over time, and things start to seem worth joking about (as in a great recent e-mail joke about Existentialism) or lost to comprehension without footnotes (which is one reason people take art history or art appreciation).

Even if, say, there really is a God, studying people's concepts of it are going to teach something. In fact, I'd say that my job in approaching the Madonnas in the Frick I also compared just CAN'T be to worry over how Mary was, and it can't be to admit that her meaning to the artists is lost to translation. I've got these paintings to worry about, and they need her. Otherwise, they become lost in another way: they disappear into a 'timeless' world that does not and never has existed, the one for true believers like Mani, who find the beauty and realism of a work a given that words can only spoil.

That's why I was trying to look at how the sublime popped up a couple of times in history and, with the example of Constable, what it meant for art.

jh John Haber

Yawn... You too still having trouble with your email?