This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Trigg, D. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Furniture Music, Hotel Lobbies, and Banality

Can We Speak of a Disinterested Space?

University of Sussex

Accusations of empty formalism are something of a cliché when it comes to Kant’s ethics and aesthetics. Nevertheless, in the case of the latter, the accusation might well be justified. Kant’s failure to put disinterestedness in place means that numerous questions remain unanswered concerning the spatiality of aesthetic experience. The purpose of this article is to ask whether a specific spatial context can influence the emergence of Kant’s disinterested delight. The author hence asks two questions: First, is there a definite distinction between interested and disinterested delight? Second, if there is such a distinction, do there exist any factors that would facilitate disinterestedness to occur? Making recourse to an essay by Siegfried Kracauer, as well as compositions by Erik Satie and Brian Eno, the author argues that context does have an influence on the distinction between disinterestedness and interestedness and that the hotel lobby is an excellent illustration of a spatial context that facilities disinterested delight for the reason that it is largely impersonal, indifferent, and so universal.

Key Words: everyday • disinterestedness • embodiment • experience • place

Space and Culture, Vol. 9, No. 4, 418-428 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/1206331206292447


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?