believethat it has already been reached? -Kant certainly doesn't give anyevidence to back up this idea. Further, the notion that there's no limitin science is also dubious. Surely with science there is a much moreevident limit than with genius, as although it may not be a realisticnotion in practice, once everything about our universe is known, thenthere is nothing more to know. Section 48 looks at the relation of genius to taste, and is the part ofKant's analysis of genius that I find the least convincing. It is in thissection that Kant distinguishes between the beauty of nature whichmust not have an end or a notion of perfection as its basis, and thebeauty of fine art which requires a concept of what the object isintended to be (its end), and for this reason must have perfection. I findboth of these qualities necessary for fine art to be questionable. There are many examples of works of fine art that do not have adefinite end, and we term these abstract art. We may not understandthe intention behind these works, but are nevertheless able to see themerit in them. There are also many examples of fine art that lackperfection. For instance many works by Picasso quite intentionallyrepresent the human form in a way that most observers would see asdeformed or irregular, and certainly not in a way that we would describeas perfect. Nevertheless, we do refer to both abstract art and the worksof artists such as Picasso as fine art.15/06/93 The notion that fine art makes beautiful that which innature we deem to be ugly is another part of Kant's analysis that Iwould question. While it is true that there are many examples to justifythis claim, I would suggest that there are just as many that show fineart representing an ugly or unpleasant scene in a way that retains thatugliness. An obvious example to my mind is Caravaggio's painting inthe National Gallery, London, entitled 'Salome receives the head of Johnthe Baptist'. Far fro...
