Creativity and Kant's theory of genius

Résumé du document

This document outlines the essence of the 46th and 47th paragraphs of Immanuel Kant's Critique of Judgment, the philosopher addresses the issue of the ontology of genius. He claims that genius is natural and is the only producer of fine arts. Moreover, since "genius is the talent which gives the rule to art?, the work created has to be original. If genius is natural though, it becomes contingent, which implies some notion of fatality which is strongly disapproved of. Declaring that a masterpiece sets an example and rules for art and that it is absolutely original is obviously tempting but I am not quite sure it is rigorous to say so. Surely, both claims have strong foundations, but I think they should be tempered. I do agree with Kant when it comes to say that some people come to life with a natural gift. If something that could be equated with genius, it can be an ability to invent and establish new rules. The word "genius?, as Kant underlines it, comes from Latin origin of "attendant spirit present from one's birth, innate ability or inclination? and is derived from the root of gignere, which means "to beget?. The original sense gave rise to a new one in the late 16th Century, which is the one of a person's characteristic disposition, and led to the one we use today, namely a person's exceptional natural ability.

Extraits

[...] Almost any man is able to make use of this poisonous heritage. The very term of art evokes the notion of effort rather than a divine production or the idea of perfection: ars in Latin and the Greek word tecnh (techne) we use to define ‘Art' both designate know-how, science, technique and knowledge. The last signification of knowledge is important to determine whether creation is original but we will come back to this argument later on. Then I would not exactly use the term ‘genius' to define some kind of a natural and almost metaphysical ability, but rather like the inspiration that drives the most talented artists. [...]

[...] Bibliography Critique of Judgment, Aesthetic, Kant SS 46. Fine art is the art of genius SS 47. [...]

[...] I would still consider that a work of genius, contrary to Kant. Therefore, genius cannot be equated to something like a soul, namely something purely personal and somehow unique that cannot be transmitted in substance. The works of a great mind does pass on from a generation to the next, and not only materially but the genius itself that lies in the work are the legacy of a certain sensibility and point of view. I thus believe that even though some people can revolutionize their art in a certain way, the work they create does not set new rules because it is original. [...]

[...] Some of his developments are most insightful and can lead to interesting conclusions but I think the ones that Kant himself draws are too fatalistic and deny men's free-will. Art is one of the greatest achievements of humanity and offers a means to men to transcend themselves. Art is obviously less accessible than religion but in creativity lies a way for every man to perfect their humanity: geniuses have a gift that allows them to travel in the fast lane but given the means, almost anyone can attain the highest level of artfulness. [...]

[...] Creativity and Kant's theory of genius In the 46th and 47th paragraphs of Kant's Critique of Judgment, the philosopher addresses the issue of the ontology of genius. He claims that genius is natural and the only producer of fine arts. Moreover, since ‘genius is the talent which gives the rule to art', the work created is to be original. If genius is natural though, it becomes contingent, which implies some notion of fatality I strongly disapprove of. Declaring that a masterpiece sets an example and rules for art, and that it is absolutely original is obviously tempting but I am not quite sure it is rigorous to say so. [...]