Peyton Carrington

HNR 1100-06

Dr. Davidshofer

December 4, 2017

In the first President’s Seminar class for High Point University freshman, Nido Qubein

lowers a magnificent chandelier in the Hayworth Fine Arts Center and brags about how many

millions of dollars it’s worth. This chandelier that towers over the theatre is so large that it blocks

off a considerable section of the audience from their view of the stage when lowered. The

transparency of the chandelier glistens under the candle lights illuminating its top half; the

crystals hanging from the bottom half are so refined one might mistake them as diamonds. The

theatre’s assembly is impressive in itself; however, when the chandelier is lowered, the effect of

its breathtaking beauty adds to the elegance that characterizes High Point University. Something

as extravagant as this chandelier is pleasant and is in fact beautiful, inspiring mankind with its

awe. Immanuel Kant and Walter Pater would both agree that this chandelier is beautiful as it

pleases Kant’s condition of being purposeless and evokes free play of the imagination, and it

satisfies Pater’s objectives of beauty, such as being pleasant, and encourages exercising the

senses. I will apply Kant’s and Pater’s aesthetic theories to the chandelier, Kant because the

chandelier stimulates free play of the imagination and embodies purposeless purpose, and Pater

because it fulfills one’s desire for pleasure and stimulates one’s use of impressions.

Kant would find this chandelier, upon his first impression of it, as pleasant and serving no

purpose. Technically, the chandelier does have lights at the top that give off some light, but these

are not substantial enough to illuminate the room and were not meant to. Therefore, this artifact

is purposeless, with no purpose besides beauty. When referring to beautiful things, Kant states,
“we do not want to know whether anything depends or can depend on the existence of the thing,

either for myself or for anyone else, but how we judge it by mere observation” (Kant 281). In

saying this, Kant indicates that art should not make anyone desire to possess it or have any goal,

purpose or agenda for it besides to be admired, appreciated and contemplated. Additionally, Kant

feels that beautiful art should be pleasant in that it “pleases the senses in sensation” (Kant 282).

That being said, art also has to be disinterested to be beautiful, according to Kant, meaning that

one has no desire to possess it and no goal for it. Due to the fact that the chandelier has no goal

except to be beautiful and is not desired to be possessed, Kant would consider it to meet the

qualification of disinterest. It is pleasant because it “gratifies a man” and beautiful because it

“pleases him” (Kant 285). Therefore, because the chandelier is pleasing to man while not

evoking interest, Kant would consider it an object of beauty.

Not only is the chandelier pleasant, it is also universal. Kant states, “the judgement of

taste, accompanied with the consciousness of separation from all interest, must claim validity for

every man, without this universality depending on objects” (Kant 286). That being said, Kant

means that if the object is truly beautiful, everyone must find it pleasant but disinterested,

therefore sharing the same state of mind when they see the artwork. The awe experienced by

everyone who views the chandelier fulfills Kant’s universal law because the chandelier demands

the agreement of beauty. According to Kant, if one “gives out anything as beautiful, he supposes

in others the same satisfaction; he judges not merely for himself, but for everyone, and speaks of

beauty as if it were a property of things” (Kant 287). Therefore, if some people were to not share

the same experience while looking at the chandelier, Kant would consider them to be barely

human.
 The next criteria Kant uses to appraise beauty is his concept of free play of the

imagination. Kant describes free play as: “a representation by which an object is given that is to

be a cognition in general requires imagination for the gathering together the manifold of

intuition, and understanding for the unity of the concept uniting the representations” (Kant 291).

The object of beauty can induce free play if its universal and charms one’s imagination. Free

play of the imagination is a sort of alternate reality that allows ones’ mind to temporarily work in

a different way and experience reality differently when in the presence of true beauty; the object

is so beautiful that it sets the imagination free to wander to its own state. Because the chandelier

is disinterested and purposeless, one adopts an aesthetic experience of beauty to linger and

contemplate the object. They make sense of the object in their own way and may attach emotions

or attributes toward it such as happy and pleasing. If people recognize that they can’t explain

their intense fondness and contentedness of the chandelier, they have achieved free play When

people engage in free play while looking at the chandelier, their thinking becomes abstract,

characterizing each part of the chandelier as part of a whole. Entering one’s own aesthetic allows

them to have a new level of experience, for when one sees beauty they want to continue seeing it.

Furthermore, Kant believes that good art obeys the general rules of aestheticism without

painfully doing so. In the case of the chandelier, it has its own unique form, but the design is

simply another form of chandelier. People identify it as a form of chandelier, but its uniqueness

sets it apart and inspires awe in the viewer. However, the chandelier as an artwork portrays

common chandeliers in a new, extravagant way. By rendering this depiction, the chandelier

transforms the sensible world into the insensible; people see what they want to see: their

criticism of the art resulting in their own creation. Lastly, Kant would determine the chandelier is

good, in addition to beautiful, as he believed the beautiful is a symbol of the good.

 If Pater were to evaluate the chandelier, he would most likely assess it in terms of

pleasure. Pater states, "What is important...is not that the critic should possess a correct abstract

definition of beauty for the intellect, but a certain kind of temperament, the power of being

deeply moved by the presence of beautiful objects" (Pater 1540). Expressing that a critic should

possess a certain temperament to critique beauty, Pater believes one must have the ability to be

deeply stimulated in the presence of beautiful art. Therefore, if a critic with this quality evaluates

the chandelier, he would be able to confirm that the art affected his spirit and gave him pleasure.

Additionally, Pater would likely contemplate the chandelier in terms of its purpose. If it were to

have any purpose other than to simply exist, Pater would not deem it beautiful; he believes in art

for the sake of art. He states, “of such wisdom, the poetic passion, the desire of beauty, the love

of art for its own sake, has most."(Pater, 1545). Pater deems that beautiful art inspires us with

passion and allows us to fully experience life by quickening our consciousness. The wisest have

passion, the desire of beauty and a love of art for its own purpose. He would conclude that the

chandelier is beautiful because it’s art for art’s sake.

When criticizing art, Pater would consider beauty in relation to how it affects the senses.

Pater believed that art is restricted to the senses and limited by our ability to perceive it; each

object is subject to a “group of impressions” of which he records as “colour, odour, texture – in

the mind of the observer” (Pater 1544). We experience such art as the chandelier through these

outlets but are also limited by them, as the “whole scope of observation is dwarfed into the

narrow chamber of the individual mind” (Pater 1544). However, not only are we limited by our

senses; Pater finds that we are also limited by time. He says that " we are all under sentence of

death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve" (Pater 1545). Because of this restriction, Pater

suggests that we be attentive and observant to beauty so that we can enjoy it while we are alive
because we cannot anticipate death. It is the tool of beautiful art that provides us with the highest

quality moments in life where we experience the purest forms of emotions; art helps teach us

how to live. According to Pater, “art comes to you proposing frankly to give you nothing but the

highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for those moment's sake." (Pater 1545).

The extravagance of the chandelier serves as a means of teaching one how to make the most of

every moment because its initial beauty allows one to recognize its more intricate beauty such as

the shape and gleam of the hanging crystals. It awards us with the highest quality moments for

the moment’s sake, and is therefore beautiful in the eyes of Pater.

Based on the Kant’s and Pater’s qualifications of beauty, the chandelier passed the tests.

It appeases Kant by being pleasant but disinterested and universal in the judgement of man. He

would also appreciate the chandelier’s ability to transform one’s imagination with free play.

Pater’ satisfaction of the chandelier derives from the pleasure it exudes, its purposelessness, and

its ability to inspire one to fully experience life. While both Pater and Kant have their own

requirements of beauty with some that overlap and some that do not, the discerning of beauty is

subjective the viewer, and the influence of such beauty has a different effect on every individual.