Sonia Esmaeillou
HUMN 2001
Kantian Disinterestedness versus Indigenous Aesthetics
Art and aesthetics have been a source of debate for a long time, with diverse cultural traditions offering unique ideas about beauty and meaning. Two important paradigms stand out: one rooted in the Western tradition, which emphasizes Kant’s idea of judging art without personal bias, and the other is based on Indigenous views that see art as a vital and inseparable expression of culture, spirituality, and community identity. Kant’s approach, as explained by Emily Brady in Kant’s Critical Sublime (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), aims to create objective standards for beauty through a detached, thoughtful judgment, while Indigenous aesthetics - as described by Heather Ahtone and Loretta Todd - stress the strong connection between artistic expression and its cultural, spiritual, and physical contexts. This essay argues that although Kant’s ideal of “subjective universal” judgment has shaped Western aesthetics for centuries, its emphasis on disinterestedness ultimately obscures the contextual layers that define Indigenous art - a universal approach that marginalizes non-Western forms of expression and encourages cultural appropriation.
Kant’s View
Immanuel Kant believed that true beauty should be appreciated without any personal bias or practical concerns. For him, aesthetic judgments must be made “disinterestedly” - free from personal desire, self-interest, or practical use- so that they can be seen as universally valid. In Kant’s Critical Sublime, Emily Brady explains that when people use reflective judgment, they set aside their personal preferences and respond to art with a shared sense of feeling. Brady writes, “the aesthetic experience, though founded in subjective feeling, aspires to universal assent” (Brady 2013, 58). This process leads to what Kant calls “subjective universal” judgments, meaning that individual feelings of beauty are expressed as if they were objective standards.
Kant also makes a clear distinction between the beautiful and the sublime. Beauty is connected to harmony, order, and pleasing form, while the sublime is about feeling awe or even terror when faced with nature’s immense power. Despite these differences, both experiences require detachment from personal interest - a suspension of practical concerns that Kant sees as essential for a genuine aesthetic experience. His insistence on disinterestedness is meant to make beauty accessible to everyone, suggesting that once personal biases are removed, a common ground for judging art can be found.
Indigenous Aesthetics
In contrast to Kant’s abstract, universal approach, Indigenous aesthetics holds that art cannot be separated from the cultural, spiritual, and physical world in which it is made. In her article “Considering Indigenous Aesthetics: A Non-Western Paradigm,” Heather Ahtone argues that Indigenous art reflects a dynamic mix of tradition, spirituality, and community history. Instead of treating art as an isolated object of beauty, Indigenous aesthetics sees it as a living process that is deeply connected to community practices and identities. Ahtone explains, “the binary division of the spiritual and the material is a construct that fails to capture the integrative nature of Indigenous artistic expression” (Ahtone 2019, 315). In this view, making art is both an act of cultural affirmation and a sacred practice that does not fit into Western categories.
Loretta Todd further develops this idea in her essay “Notes on Appropriation.” Todd emphasizes that Indigenous artistic practices are closely tied to cultural sovereignty and self-determination. She writes, “the appropriation of Indigenous cultural symbols reduces them to mere commodities, stripping them of their historical and spiritual significance” (Todd 1990, 22). For Indigenous peoples, creating and displaying art are acts of resistance against colonization and cultural erasure, making art an important part of community identity rather than just an object to be judged from a distance.
Comparing the Views
The difference between Kantian and Indigenous aesthetics shows two different ways of understanding and experiencing art. Kant’s focus on disinterested judgment assumes that aesthetic experience can be separated from its cultural and historical background. However, this separation risks removing the very elements that give art its true meaning. By favoring a universal standard that pretends to be neutral, Western aesthetic theories can cause what some call “epistemic violence” against art that is deeply rooted in specific cultural traditions.
When Indigenous art is judged only by Kantian standards, its strong ties to ritual, history, and community identity are often overlooked or undervalued. This not only weakens the integrity of Indigenous aesthetics but also contributes to a wider trend of cultural appropriation. When non-Indigenous artists use Indigenous motifs without understanding their true meanings, they help to turn a living tradition into a commodity, reinforcing existing power imbalances.
Moreover, the claim of universality in Kantian aesthetics is not truly neutral; it reflects the long-standing dominance of Western thought. By insisting on a disinterested approach, this system pushes aside other ways of knowing and silences voices that do not fit within its narrow standards. In contrast, Indigenous aesthetics, with its focus on context and relationships, presents a more inclusive view of art - one that values diversity and challenges the homogenizing forces of global capitalism.
A New Approach
The challenges created by these different approaches demand that we rethink how art is reviewed, taught, and valued. Instead of strictly following Kant’s idea of disinterestedness, contemporary art criticism and education should adopt a more inclusive system that recognizes the many layers of aesthetic experience. This new system would not only consider an artwork’s formal qualities but also the cultural, spiritual, and political context that give art its true meaning.
One promising method is to combine the strengths of both views. On one hand, the strict and careful process of Kantian reflective judgment provides a reliable way to evaluate art. On the other hand, the focus on context found in Indigenous aesthetics makes sure that art is seen in all its complexity. By bringing these ideas together, critics and educators can create an environment where different artistic practices are appreciated on their own terms instead of being forced into one fixed, universal standard.
This combined approach also has real-world benefits beyond academic theory. In our globalized society, the dominant Western stories often support cultural appropriation and exploitation. A more inclusive system of aesthetics challenges these stories by recognizing the artistic expressions of marginalized communities. It encourages artists and curators to honor cultural differences, which helps promote broader social and cultural healing.
Furthermore, allowing artists to work without the strict limits of a universal standard can lead to innovative art that truly reflects their unique cultural backgrounds. This diversity makes the global art scene richer by supporting a wide range of voices and ideas that more completely represent the full spectrum of human experience.
Conclusion
Taking another look at the relationship between Kantian disinterestedness and Indigenous aesthetics pushes us to question long-held beliefs in art criticism. While Kant’s approach has deeply shaped Western aesthetics, its strictness can push aside art that is closely tied to cultural and spiritual contexts. In contrast, Indigenous aesthetics provide a complete view that connects art with everyday life, community, and tradition. Finding a way to balance these perspectives - keeping the analysis of reflective judgment while also accepting the context that gives art its meaning - is a necessary step for theory.
Bibliography
Ahtone, Heather. “Considering Indigenous Aesthetics: A Non-Western Paradigm.” Aesthetics 39, no. 3 (2019).
Brady, Emily. “Kant’s Critical Sublime.” In The Sublime in Modern Philosophy: Aesthetics, Ethics, and Nature, 55–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
Todd, Loretta. “Notes on Appropriation.” Parallelogramme 16, no. 1 (1990)
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Judgment. Translated by Werner S. Pluhar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Spivak, Gayatri. “Introduction.” In An Aesthetic Education in the Era of Globalization, 1–34. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012.
https://academictrap.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/gayatri-chakravorty-spivak-an-aesthetic-education-in-the-era-of-globalization.pdf
Young, James O. Cultural Appropriation and the Arts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
https://download.e-bookshelf.de/download/0000/5779/45/L-G-0000577945-0002344648.pdf
Schiller, Friedrich. Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man. Various letters, 1793 - 1805
Typing ...