Abstract：According to Kant, aesthetics must possess universality. Otherwise, it would fall into the dilemma of the modern empiricist aesthetics. One of Kant’s key tasks in the Critique of Judgment is to prove the universality of aesthetic judgments. Not only does Kant provide proof, but he offers a dual proof. On one hand, he explores the transcendental conditions for universally valid aesthetic judgments within the invisible realm of human aesthetic psychological experience, where he discovers common sense (Gemeinsinn). On the other hand, he seeks the empirical basis for the universal validity of aesthetics in the visible realm of human aesthetic experience, where he finds art. Kant is acutely aware that if common sense were the sole proof, the universal transmission of human emotions would lack empirical, experiential validation. Conversely, if art were the sole proof, the universal transmission of emotions would lack prior confirmation and transcendental guarantees. Clearly, for Kant, both common sense and art are indispensable, equally important, mutually reinforcing, and interdependent in proving the universality of aesthetic judgments. By finding both common sense and art, Kant essentially provides a “double insurance” for aesthetic universality.Kant’s use of common sense to provide an transcendental proof for aesthetic universality is most innovative in that he distinguishes between objective universality and subjective universality. Through the contrast between reflective judgment and determinative judgment, he uses subjective universality to counter objective universality. This not only establishes universality for aesthetics but also grounds the universality in human nature. In Kant’s words, aesthetic judgment achieves the universal communicability of emotions without the aid of concepts. This opens a new path for understanding the tension between universality and particularity.Kant’s use of art to provide an empirical proof for aesthetic universality is equally innovative in that he transcends the previously dominant theories of art as imitation and art as expression. He articulates a new theory of art, art as emotional communication. In Kant’s view, the theory of imitation does not facilitate emotional exchange between people, as it removes emotion from the equation, and therefore does not involve the universal transmission of feelings. Expression theory, while touching on certain emotional elements, focuses only on the personal emotions of the artist and their expression, which remain private and confined to subjective introspection, and thus cannot guarantee the universal transmission of emotions. In his theory of emotional communication in art, Kant grants art a deeper social function, assigning it the crucial role of transmitting emotions between individuals. Using artistic genius as an example, Kant reveals that art is not only an individual expression of emotion but also a symbolic form that, through its purposiveness in form, enables the universal transmission of emotions. Thus, art is not merely the manifestation of individual aesthetic experience but is also an essential medium for the universal communication of emotions on a social level. This offers a new starting point for reinterpreting the structure of art today.
2024, Vol. 54 
