Bibliographic record
Abstract
I am grateful to Aviv Reiter for his thoughtful comments on Young (2020). Our approaches to Kant have a great deal in common. In particular, we both believe that Kant can only be properly understood when he is placed in his historical context. I also agree that the views of Charles Batteux and Kant on the fine arts as imitative arts differ significantly from the views of Giovan Bellori. We agree that Kant was an aesthetic cognitivist. Despite our points of agreement, I am unpersuaded by some of the things that Reiter says. In particular, I want to take issue with his claim that Kant was in any way a formalist about the fine arts or that he was influenced by formalists or by someone like Bellori. Moreover, Kant did not believe that works of art express rational ideas. For a start, Reiter’s characterization of Bellori as a formalist is odd. Bellori believes that the fine arts are imitative. He simply believes that they imitate forms rather than the natural world. The forms to which he refers are Platonic forms or, as he calls them, “Ideas” ([1672] 2005, 57). Bellori does not believe, unlike formalists in the modern sense of the word, that beauty in the fine arts is autonomous. Rather, the beauty of the arts is dependent on the beauty of what is imitated. Bellori is not a counterexample to the hypothesis that in antiquity, the Renaissance, and the early modern period the fine arts were taken to be imitative arts. He simply has an account of what the fine arts imitate that differs from the accounts of Batteux and Kant. They believe that the fine arts imitate nature or, as Batteux has it, belle nature ([1746] 2015). Batteux and Kant were, however, scarcely innovators when they parted company with Bellori. Many other eighteenth-century writers, notably Jean-Baptiste Du Bos, also held that art imitates nature, including human nature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".