PREREQUISITE: THREE CREDITS IN PHILOSOPHY, OR PERMISSION OF THE DEPARTMENT.
WINTER, 2010MW 16:15-17:30
SGW H- 459
PROFESSOR JUSTIN SMITH
JUSTISMI@ALCOR.CONCORDIA.CA
OFFICE HOURS: MW 12-1
OFFICE LOCATION: PR-402 (2100 MACKAY STREET)
COURSE DESCRIPTION:
Classical aesthetics is the philosophical study of beauty. It seeks to answer questions such as: What is beauty? What is it that all beautiful things have in common? What are the standards of judgment by which the beauty of a work of art may be determined? In recent history, philosophers have begun to treat the question of the nature and ontology of works of art as distinct from the problem of beauty, since it is no longer at all clear that in order for a work to be a good work of art, or to be a work of art at all, its creator must seek to make it an instantiation of the Beautiful. Indeed, today some artists consciously aim to create revolting and ugly works. In this course, we will, in the first half, focus on the classical aesthetic question of the nature of beauty in art, and in the second half we will focus on one of the most important works in the history of philosophical aesthetics, namely, Immanuel Kant's Critique of the Power of Judgment.
REQUIRED TEXTS:
Steve Cahn and Aaron Meskin (Eds.), Aesthetics: A Comprehensive Anthology (Blackwell Publishing, 2008).
Immanuel Kant, Critique of the Power of Judgment, Ed. Paul Guyer, Tr. Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews (Cambridge University Press, 2000).
MEANS OF EVALUATION:
• Four short quizzes on the assigned reading (40%)
• One final exam consisting in short answer and essay questions, to be given on the last day of class (30%).
• One final paper of 5-7 pages on an assigned topic, due in the office drop-box no later than 19 April (20%).
• Class participation (defined as 'consistent display of interest in the content of the course') (10%).
GRADES:
The following explains my understanding of grades for responses and exams. Prior to the take-home exams, I will detail, in writing, the specific expectations and requirements, and I will give you my grading criteria for the particular assignment. The final course grade will be computed on the basis of the percentages each exam and paper is worth. Thus, I will generally not penalise a student for not taking an exam, other than computing that portion of the final grade as ‘zero.’
• A: Work that receives an “A” meets all the expectations and requirements, but goes beyond them in significant ways. For instance, an exam or a paper of this quality may do one or more of the following: it demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the wider questions and scholarly significance of the issues; it promises to make a substantial contribution to the existing scholarship; it is exceptionally well-composed and well-argued.
• B: Work that receives a “B” fully meets all the expectations and requirements with regard to deadlines, length, content, argumentation, and so forth. It demonstrates full and adequate understanding of the assigned readings, of the lectures, and of the specific task of the assignment.
• C: Work at this level generally meets the expectations of the assignment and demonstrates adequate understanding of the course material, but falls short in crucial respects. For example, the work is too short, key concepts or aspects are not mentioned, an argument lacks coherence or logical structure, the work is not well written and/or displays too many grammar and spelling errors, and so on.
• D: At this level, the work handed in does not meet the general expectations and requirements of the assignment. While it endeavours to meet the specific criteria, it shows flaws and gaps in the understanding of the course material that prevent it from being coherent or from taking into account all the relevant sources, ideas, and arguments.
• F: Work that receives an “F” makes no serious attempt to meet the formal and substantial requirements, or was not handed in at all. The flaws and gaps in understanding are so grave that the reader cannot detect a concerted effort to appropriate and use the course material.
COURSE POLICIES:
• You are not required to attend every class, but if you miss class you may not ask me to fill you in on whatever you missed. In other words, I give out information once and only once: in class. I will not respond to e-mails requesting information on missed classes.
• In general, I respond only to e-mails that are sent in exceptional circumstances, when students are unable to make it to my office hours. You should consider my office hours as the primary opportunity to speak to me.
• The primary purpose of my office hours, in turn, is to discuss philosophy. If you come to my office hours to plead for a change of grade, or to tell me about the exceptional hardships that have caused you to underperform this semester, you will likely find yourself in an impromptu conversation about Kant's analytic of the sublime (for example), and it would be nice if you had something interesting to contribute to the conversation.
• If you miss any of four quizzes, you may not make them up. Instead, you will simply lose 10% of the total course grade, which in itself is a loss that should not lead to a failing grade. Please don't bother your physician with requests for medical excuses, either: just come to class as regularly as you are able, and if you are not able, then consider taking another class.
SCHEDULE OF CLASSES:
Monday, 4 January: Introduction
Wednesday, 6 January: Plato, Republic
Monday, 11 January: Aristotle, Poetics
Wednesday, 13 January: St. Bonaventure, “On the Reduction of the Arts to Theology”
Monday, 18 January: Leon Battista Alberti, On Painting
Wednesday, 20 January: Shaftesbury, Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times
Monday, 25 January: David Hume, “Of the Standard of Taste”
Wednesday, 27 January: Edmund Burke, A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origins of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful
Monday, 1 February: Gotthold Lessing, Laocoön
Wednesday, 3 February: Benedetto Croce, Aesthetics
Monday, 8 February: Kant, CPJ, Preface and Introduction (Guyer 55-86)
Wednesday, 10 February: Kant, CPJ, "Analytic of the Beautiful" (Guyer 87-127)
Monday, 15 February: Kant, CPJ, "Analytic of the Beautiful" (cont.)
Wednesday, 17 February: Kant, CPJ, "Analytic of the Sublime" (128-159)
Monday, 22 February: Midterm Break (Keep reading the "Analytic of the Sublime"!)
Wednesday, 24 February: Midterm Break
Monday, 1 March: Kant, CPJ, "Analytic of the Sublime" (cont.)
Wednesday, 3 March: Kant, CPJ, "Deduction of Pure Aesthetic Judgments" (Guyer 160-212)
Monday, 8 March: Kant, CPJ, "Deduction of Pure Aesthetic Judgments" (cont.)
Wednesday, 10 March: "Deduction of Pure Aesthetic Judgments" (cont.)
Monday, 15 March: Kant, CPJ, "Dialectic of the Aesthetic Power of Judgment;" "Appendix on the Methodology of Taste" (Guyer 213-230)
Wednesday, 17 March: Kant, CPJ, "Critique of the Teleological Power of Judgment;" "Analytic of the Teleological Power of Judgment" (Guyer 231-256)
Monday, 22 March: Kant, CPJ, "Dialectic of the Teleological Power of Judgment" (Guyer 257-284)
Wednesday, 24 March: Kant, CPJ, "Appendix: Methodology of the Teleological Power of Judgment" (Guyer 285-346)
Monday, 29 March: Kant, CPJ, "Appendix" (cont.)
Wednesday, 31 March: Kant, CPJ, "Appendix" (cont.)
Monday, 5 April: Friedrich Schiller, Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man
Wednesday, 7 April: Friedrich Schiller, Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man (cont.)
Comments