the critique of judgement-第52部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


tever　the　archetype　is；　either　the　reference　to　an　actual　end　or　only　the　semblance　of　one　may　be　imposed　upon　reflection　as　its　condition。　　　To　plastic　art；　as　the　first　kind　of　formative　fine　art；　belong　sculpture　and　architecture。　The　first　is　that　which　presents　concepts　of　things　corporeally；　as　they　might　exist　in　nature　（though　as　fine　art　it　directs　its　attention　to　aesthetic　finality）。　The　second　is　the　art　of　presenting　concepts　of　things　which　are　possible　only　through　art；　and　the　determining　ground　of　whose　form　is　not　nature　but　an　arbitrary　end…and　of　presenting　them　both　with　a　view　to　this　purpose　and　yet；　at　the　same　time；　with　aesthetic　finality。　In　architecture　the　chief　point　is　a　certain　use　of　the　artistic　object　to　which；　as　the　condition；　the　aesthetic　ideas　are　limited。　In　sculpture　the　mere　expression　of　aesthetic　ideas　is　the　main　intention。　Thus　statues　of　men；　gods；　animals；　etc。；　belong　to　sculpture；　but　temples；　splendid　buildings　for　public　concourse；　or　even　dwelling…houses；　triumphal　arches；　columns；　mausoleums；　etc。；　erected　as　monuments；　belong　to　architecture；　and　in　fact　all　household　furniture　（the　work　of　cabinetmakers；　and　so　forth…things　meant　to　be　used）　may　be　added　to　the　list；　on　the　ground　that　adaptation　of　the　product　to　a　particular　use　is　the　essential　element　in　a　work　of　architecture。　On　the　other　hand；　a　mere　piece　of　sculpture；　made　simply　to　be　looked　at　and　intended　to　please　on　its　own　account；　is；　as　a　corporeal　presentation；　a　mere　imitation　of　nature；　though　one　in　which　regard　is　paid　to　aesthetic　ideas；　and　in　which；　therefore；　sensuous　truth　should　not　go　the　length　of　losing　the　appearance　of　being　an　art　and　a　product　of　the　elective　will。　　　Painting；　as　the　second　kind　of　formative　art；　which　presents　the　sensuous　semblance　in　artful　combination　with　ideas；　I　would　divide　into　that　of　the　beautiful　Portrayal　of　nature；　and　that　of　the　beautiful　arrangement　of　its　products。　The　first　is　painting　proper；　the　second　landscape　gardening。　For　the　first　gives　only　the　semblance　of　bodily　extension；　whereas　the　second；　giving　this；　no　doubt；　according　to　its　truth；　gives　only　the　semblance　of　utility　and　employment　for　ends　other　than　the　play　of　the　imagination　in　the　contemplation　of　its　forms。*　The　latter　consists　in　no　more　than　decking　out　the　ground　with　the　same　manifold　variety　（grasses；　flowers；　shrubs；　and　trees；　and　even　water；　hills；　and　dales）　as　that　with　which　nature　presents　it　to　our　view；　only　arranged　differently　and　in　obedience　to　certain　ideas。　The　beautiful　arrangement　of　corporeal　things；　however；　is　also　a　thing　for　the　eye　only；　just　like　painting…the　sense　of　touch　can　form　no　intuitable　representation　of　such　a　form；　In　addition　I　would　place　under　the　head　of　painting；　in　the　wide　sense；　the　decoration　of　rooms　by　means　of　hangings；　ornamental　accessories；　and　all　beautiful　furniture　the　sole　function　of　which　is　to　be　looked　at；　and　in　the　same　way　the　art　of　tasteful　dressing　（with　rings；　snuffboxes；　etc。）。　For　a　parterre　of　various　flowers；　a　room　with　a　variety　of　ornaments　（including　even　the　ladies'　attire）；　go　to　make　at　a　festal　gathering　a　sort　of　picture　which；　like　pictures　in　the　true　sense　of　the　word　（those　which　are　not　intended　to　teach　history　or　natural　science）；　has　no　business　beyond　appealing　to　the　eye；　in　order　to　entertain　the　imagination　in　free　play　with　ideas；　and　to　engage　actively　the　aesthetic　judgement　independently　of　any　definite　end。　No　matter　how　heterogeneous；　on　the　mechanical　side；　may　be　the　craft　involved　in　all　this　decoration；　and　no　matter　what　a　variety　of　artists　may　be　required；　still　the　judgement　of　taste；　so　far　as　it　is　one　upon　what　is　beautiful　in　this　art；　is　determined　in　one　and　the　same　way：　namely；　as　a　judgement　only　upon　the　forms　（without　regard　to　any　end）　as　they　present　themselves　to　the　eye；　singly　or　in　combination；　according　to　their　effect　upon　the　imagination。　The　justification；　however；　of　bringing　formative　art　（by　analogy）　under　a　common　head　with　gesture　in　a　speech；　lies　in　the　fact　that　through　these　figures　the　soul　of　the　artists　furnishes　a　bodily　expression　for　the　substance　and　character　of　his　thought；　and　makes　the　thing　itself　speak；　as　it　were；　in　mimic　language…a　very　common　play　of　our　fancy；　that　attributes　to　lifeless　things　a　soul　suitable　to　their　form；　and　that　uses　them　as　its　mouthpiece。

　　*It　seems　strange　that　landscape　gardening　may　be　regarded　as　a　kind　of　painting；　notwithstanding　that　it　presents　its　forms　corporeally。　But；　as　it　takes　its　forms　bodily　from　nature　（the　trees；　shrubs；　grasses；　and　flowers　taken；　originally　at　least；　from　wood　and　field）　it　is　to　that　extent　not　an　art　such　as；　let　us　say；　plastic　art。　Further；　the　arrangement　which　it　makes　is　not　conditioned　by　any　concept　of　the　object　or　of　its　end　（as　is　the　case　in　sculpture）；　but　by　the　mere　free　play　of　the　imagination　in　the　act　of　contemplation。　Hence　it　bears　a　degree　of　resemblance　to　simple　aesthetic　painting　that　has　no　definite　theme　（but　by　means　of　light　and　shade　makes　a　pleasing　composition　of　atmosphere；　land；　and　water。）

　　（3）　The　art　of　the　beautiful　play　of　sensations　（sensations　that　arise　from　external　stimulation）；　which　is　a　play　of　sensations　that　has　nevertheless　to　permit　of　universal　communication；　can　only　be　concerned　with　the　proportion　of　the　different　degrees　of　tension　in　the　sense　to　which　the　sensation　belongs；　i。e。；　with　its　tone。　In　this　comprehensive　sense　of　the　word；　it　may　be　divided　into　the　artificial　play　of　sensations　of　hearing　and　of　sight；　consequently　into　music　and　the　art　of　colour。　It　is　of　note　that　these　two　senses；　over　and　above　such　susceptibility　for　impressions　as　is　required　to　obtain　concepts　of　external　objects　by　means　of　these　impressions；　also　admit　of　a　peculiar　associated　sensation　of　which　we　cannot　well　determine　whether　it　is　based　on　sense　or　reflection；　and　that　this　sensibility　may　at　times　be　wanting；　although　the　sense；　in　other　respects；　and　in　what　concerns　its　employment　for　the　cognition　of　objects；　is　by　no　means　deficient　but　particularly　keen。　In　other　words；　we　cannot　confidently　assert　whether　a　colour　or　a　tone　（sound）　is　merely　an　agreeable　sensation；　or　whether　they　are　in　themselves　a　beautiful　play　of　sensations；　and　in　being　estimated　aesthetically；　convey；　as　such；　a　delight　in　their　form。　If　we　consider　the　velocity　of　the　vibrations　of　light；　or；　in　the　second　case；　of　the　air；　which　in　all　probability　far　outstrips　any　capacity　on　our　part　for　forming　an　immediate　estimate　in　perception　of　the　time　interval　between　them；　we　should　be　led　to　believe　that　it　is　only　the　effect　of　those　vibrating　movements　upon　the　elastic　parts　of　our　body；　that　can　be　evident　to　sense；　but　that　the　time…interval　between　them　is　not　noticed　nor　involved　in　our　estimate；　and　that；　consequently；　all　that　enters　into　combination　with　colours　and　tones　is　agreeableness；　and　not　beauty；　of　their　composition。　But；　let　us　consider；　on　the　other　hand；　first；　the　mathematical　character　both　of　the　proportion　of　those　vibrations　in　music；　and　of　our　judgement　upon　it；　and；　as　is　reasonable；　form　an　estimate