Contemporary or modern art as described by H.W. Janson (666) asserts the freedom of an artist to create a new style and provides the artist with the mission of defining the meaning of his time and potentially to reshape society through art. Certainly, the terms "contemporary art" and "modern art" are complex in that they refer to what Janson (666) calls a succession of "isms" which have emerged, flourished, and been replaced by a vast variety of new forms, styles, techniques, and potentials. From the Kantian perspective as described by Preziosi (84-96), bringing an aesthetic judgment to bear on these various "isms" is challenging at best.
It is unlikely that there is anything that can be universally claimed with respect to how Kant would describe or identify that which is beautiful in modern art. Beauty in the context of this extremely diverse of styles and forms is ultimately a matter of both taste and one's concept of the good (Preziosi, 81). Unfortunately, many of the products in the modern era in the arts are purposive and objects have been created with a distinct meaning and even use in mind.
For example, Roy Lichtenstein's Girl at Piano purposely draws upon the standardized image of comic strips to sentimentalize love and human relationships. Many of Lichtenstein's other works draw upon similar themes. Other artists, such as Victor Vasarely, in Vega, use geometrics to present spatial relationships which may or may not be viewed as beautiful, but which do reflect the Kantian construct of "free play" (Williams 102).
If common sense is an a priori principle of taste, then modern and contemporary art often require the suspension of common sense and a willingness to accept the juxtaposition of items or objects that have no clear or readily understood relationship to one another. Kant might look at a mobile by Alexander Calder (e.g., Lobster Trap and Fish Tail) and see objects that are symbolically referenced...