Compare and contrast ideas from Reading #4 “Romaine Lourquet” by John Berger with ideas from Reading #3 “Kant and the Aesthetic Imagination” by Michael Podro. 

You may refer to ideas from the in class group presentations on M 3/02 and to your individual written response for Reading #3: “Kant and the Aesthetic Imagination” by Michael Podro. 

*At least 250 words.

when writing reading responses, it is imperative to abide by the
school’s policy regarding plagiarism. Even paraphrasing sentences in a
manner that is too close to the original text is considered plagiarism.( please cite and give credits)

Kant and the Aesthetic Imagination

​According to the article titled “Kant and the Aesthetic Imagination” by Michael Podro, ideas

come about depending on how people use their interdependence towards their experiences

with nature to entertain various thoughts. Consequently, these ideas are notions that are

varied and go beyond what is perceived as sensible. They can be ideas of immortality, human

freedom, and God, among others (Podro, 2003). These ideas rely on one’s interdependence

on how he/she perceives the world from a broader perspective than him/herself.

​Artists make meaning based on three aspects of imaginative freedom. First, there is the

perception of independence towards something. Second, there is the perception of being

relieved of specific constraints. Finally, there is the notion of imaginative freedom between

an object and the mind (Podro, 2003). Based on these three sources, it is clear that the ideas

of a particular individual originate from how he/she exercises his/her imagination. Ideas are

crafted by how one constructs something in his/her mind based on his/her experiences.

​Finally, the philosophies of Kant and Podro correspond to cultural critique by attempting to

give an explanation of the concept of beauty and how the perception of aesthetics arise within

individuals. Generally, cultural criticism refers to how one views something, it is the

examination of diverse things based on how they are created and interpreted. This

interpretation is subject to how a specific individual interacts with his/her environment, and

how the same environment has shaped his/her thoughts. Consequently, two people’s opinions

about something can be totally different from each other. Podro (2003) notes that judgment

about something is simply a reflection of an object that relies on the scope of its engagement.

Hence, the critique of something will tend to differ from person to person.

Reference

Podro, M. (2003). Kant and the aesthetic imagination. Art and Thought, 51-70.