Most introductions to philosophical aesthetics gloss over at least two forms of violence: (1) The philosophical subdiscipline that came to be known as “philosophical aesthetics” is a very particular if not provincial variant of aesthetics, namely Western aesthetics, and one of its aims was to belittle if not eradicate alternative forms of aesthetics. (2) Moreover, Western aesthetics was forged in tandem with and in support of racial capitalism in the 18 th century and certainly not out of love for the arts. In other words, being all but eternal and universal, the variant of philosophical aesthetics that is hegemonic to this day, is based on different forms of violence that need to be put center stage if we want to understand how philosophical aesthetics later developed, and if we want to change and possibly end it.

Sections of my lecture:

1. From where I speak: geopolitics, institutional politics, and the politics of disciplines

2. From global racial capitalism to my focus on Kant (and some remarks on Hume)

3. Changes within the field of Western aesthetics

4. Interactions between the emergence of philosophical aesthetics and society

5. A very brief introduction to Kant’s Critique of Judgement

“And thus, no doubt, at first only chars, e.g. colours for painting oneself (rocou

among the Caribs and cinnabar among the Iroquois), or flowers, sea-shells,

beautifully coloured feathers, then, in the course of time, also beautiful forms (as in

canoes, apparel etc.) […] become of moment in society and attract a considerable

interest. Eventually, when civilization has reached its height it makes this work of

communication almost the main business of refined inclination, and the entire value

of sensations is placed in the degree to which they permit of universal

communication.” (Kant 2008, 127, § 41)

“But […] this immediate interest in the beauty of nature” – the epitome of formal

beauty – “is not in fact common. It is peculiar to those whose habits of thought are

already trained to the good or else are eminently susceptible to such training.” (Kant

2008, 130, § 42).

“I am apt to suspect the N*s to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever

was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in

action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences.

[…] In Jamaica, indeed, they talk of one N* as a man of parts and learning; but it is

likely he is admired for very slender accomplishments, like a parrot, who speaks a few

words plainly.” (Hume 2006a, 213) (I have deliberately redacted the offensive N-

word.)

“Fine art and the sciences, […], by conveying a pleasure that admits of universal

communication […] do much to overcome the tyrannical propensities of the senses,

and so prepare man for a sovereignty in which reason alone shall have sway”. (Kant

2008, § 83)

Source: Francis Williams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Williams_(poet)

For a better reproduction of the painting as well as for further information by London’s Victoria and Albert

Museum that owns the painting see:

https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/francis-williams-a-portrait-of-a-writer

For more information see The National Portrait Gallery’s Website: https://npg.si.edu/object/npg_NPG.77.2

6. Conclusion: how (not) to move on