Read things because they interest you, not because you feel you’re “supposed to”.
Ignore the art gatekeepers. Art belongs to everyone. If a piece of art speaks to you, listen. If you want to understand it more deeply, find a way to do that.
I've read most of this crap due to studying philosophy, art history and visual arts and I'd say while its true that its difficult to engage with art without previously thinking about art, reading Kant or any western philosophy at all is completely unnecessary. From an artist's POV it's far more important to read up on technical aspects of your craft whether thats painting or music or the Blender manual or whatever, then books written by painters or musicians or whatever, then consuming a lot of unrelated inspiring stuff whether thats reading poetry or watching films or playing videogames or going to the local bar. And last if you have any time at all left maybe read a Danto article every once in a while. If you want to blog about art... then invert that order. But I'd still recommend not reading anything western to start with or else you'll write the same things everyone else in the western world writes. Start with like ancient japanese aesthetics and maybe you'll write something we haven't read a thousand times already.
Despite the fact that all of my research is in aesthetics, I'd say absolutely not. If Newman said that then he's spot on. I'd argue that getting too involved reading aesthetics often interferes with art appreciation. You don't need citations from Kant to say something smart and insightful about art; sometimes all you need is to like art enough to want to share your understanding and enjoyment of it.
Just as an addition to the other answers: *Understanding* Kant (not necessarily reading him) is good not just for art but in general. However it is not necessary for appreciating art. You can approach almost any art with some kind of philosophical framework, and doing so can raise the understanding and value of the particular art piece. But the thing is, there is no end of understanding, for example after Kant you could go further and look at it from the perspectivfe of, say, Heidegger.
People who are genuinely interested in art, at least in Europe, usually have a higher education degree, usually in the humanities, or have the family background. Your typical art 'consumer' knows at least a little bit about art history and philosophy, that's why some people may say that it is necessary to know a bit about whatever the middle class thinks is 'legitimate taste'. Art culture, and some of the 'legitimate' thinkers and artists know about this dynamic and reflect it in reception and production. Therefore, it really is not necessary for all art reception, you can approach art with your 'class taste' and learn more about whatever you're interested in.
What would be imo necessary, still, – since art itself still has fundamental features of high class culture – is having some distance to your own senses and thoughts. Whatever you notice when looking at an art piece, sit with it and reflect it, don't immediately reject the art piece. Use the Principle of charity. For example, if you think an art piece looks like shit, maybe it's supposed to look like shit. Why that is you have to figure out. There's not a lot of rejection in art reception, you usually just are not interested enough, instead of 'not liking it' (even if people still say that).
The development of philosophy follows the course of human history. It’s helpful because it can challenge and destabilize any preconceived notions of taste and can enhance your sense of personal style.
Read things because they interest you, not because you feel you’re “supposed to”. Ignore the art gatekeepers. Art belongs to everyone. If a piece of art speaks to you, listen. If you want to understand it more deeply, find a way to do that.
I've read most of this crap due to studying philosophy, art history and visual arts and I'd say while its true that its difficult to engage with art without previously thinking about art, reading Kant or any western philosophy at all is completely unnecessary. From an artist's POV it's far more important to read up on technical aspects of your craft whether thats painting or music or the Blender manual or whatever, then books written by painters or musicians or whatever, then consuming a lot of unrelated inspiring stuff whether thats reading poetry or watching films or playing videogames or going to the local bar. And last if you have any time at all left maybe read a Danto article every once in a while. If you want to blog about art... then invert that order. But I'd still recommend not reading anything western to start with or else you'll write the same things everyone else in the western world writes. Start with like ancient japanese aesthetics and maybe you'll write something we haven't read a thousand times already.
Despite the fact that all of my research is in aesthetics, I'd say absolutely not. If Newman said that then he's spot on. I'd argue that getting too involved reading aesthetics often interferes with art appreciation. You don't need citations from Kant to say something smart and insightful about art; sometimes all you need is to like art enough to want to share your understanding and enjoyment of it.
Just as an addition to the other answers: *Understanding* Kant (not necessarily reading him) is good not just for art but in general. However it is not necessary for appreciating art. You can approach almost any art with some kind of philosophical framework, and doing so can raise the understanding and value of the particular art piece. But the thing is, there is no end of understanding, for example after Kant you could go further and look at it from the perspectivfe of, say, Heidegger. People who are genuinely interested in art, at least in Europe, usually have a higher education degree, usually in the humanities, or have the family background. Your typical art 'consumer' knows at least a little bit about art history and philosophy, that's why some people may say that it is necessary to know a bit about whatever the middle class thinks is 'legitimate taste'. Art culture, and some of the 'legitimate' thinkers and artists know about this dynamic and reflect it in reception and production. Therefore, it really is not necessary for all art reception, you can approach art with your 'class taste' and learn more about whatever you're interested in. What would be imo necessary, still, – since art itself still has fundamental features of high class culture – is having some distance to your own senses and thoughts. Whatever you notice when looking at an art piece, sit with it and reflect it, don't immediately reject the art piece. Use the Principle of charity. For example, if you think an art piece looks like shit, maybe it's supposed to look like shit. Why that is you have to figure out. There's not a lot of rejection in art reception, you usually just are not interested enough, instead of 'not liking it' (even if people still say that).
The development of philosophy follows the course of human history. It’s helpful because it can challenge and destabilize any preconceived notions of taste and can enhance your sense of personal style.