Kant's philosophy of aesthetics marks a shift in thinking about the beautiful. The philosophers before Kant looked at the idea of beauty with a holistic sense. Beauty did not exist as an entity unto itself, but it overlapped with other concepts, like functionality. With the Greeks, for example, art had to be functional and did not exist outside of this stipulation. As well, a beautiful piece of art had to follow rules like proportion to be called "good." If the art was good, then it was also considered beautiful. Defining beauty in this way goes around the actual issue as there is no clear definition of exactly what beauty is. Without a clear definition of beauty, questions of creating something that is beautiful outside of these criteria weaken these philosophies and point out flaws in this type of definition.

With the Enlightenment, this type of holistic thinking changed to a fractured and sectionalized thinking. Now art does not have to be functional to be art. The criteria of beauty also changes as philosophers try to gain a clear definition of what beauty is. Within his writings, Kant tries to narrow down what beauty is through an analysis of the language of aesthetics.

In analyzing the beautiful, Kant discusses the idea of taste. He says that using taste as a determining factor in finding beauty in an object results in a feeling of pleasure or pain within the viewer (pg. 281). Consequently, decisions about the beauty of the object are based on the reaction of the viewer to the object. This decision about the ‘beauty' of the object is totally subjective and leads away from the idea of a universal. Therefore, the idea of taste in this sense merely becomes a matter of personal moral judgement that reflects more on the viewer than on the object itself. In coming to this conclusion, Kant feels that true beauty cannot be judged by an individual because their judgement is too subjective.

Kant also starts to break down the historical linking of the good and the beautiful. He says that the concept of good can be broken down into objects that are good because they are functional and objects which are good in themselves (pg. 283). In both of these instances the object is involved in a concept of purpose. An object which causes a sense of pleasantness may be good, but it is not beautiful as it is rooted in the subjective reactions of the viewer. Kant still maintains that a beautiful object is good, but he narrows the previous conception of beauty as he establishes that not all good objects are beautiful.

Although Kant feels that individual taste does not describe beauty on its own, he still credits taste in general as a mechanism for finding beauty. The key to this comes from the concept that people can discuss beauty amongst themselves. Within any discussion of aesthetics, there is a general consensus of taste on what is beautiful. For example, people generally agree that a rose is beautiful. He points out that this consensus on beauty is not a universal, but it is still a valid indicator of a universal beauty as this is not based on individual taste. The judgement no longer relies on subjectivity, but shifts to include a collective reason. Yet, in defining this shift as leading toward a definition of beauty, Kant also warns that going too far towards the cognitive is just as misleading in finding beauty as being too subjective.

In analyzing the concept as it applies to the beautiful, Kant feels that the beautiful can please universally with requiring a concept (pg.293). Here, he introduces the idea of purposiveness without a purpose. This is different from earlier conceptions of art, as art had to have a function within society to even be considered art. Now art can function on its own, outside of its historical uses. It seems to me that Kant's theory is the precursor to the modern term ‘art for art's sake.' By the end of his analysis, Kant has reached the conclusion that beautiful art must have imagination, understanding, spirit, and taste to be beautiful (pg 323). This is much more specific than the earlier Greek definitions of beauty.

When it comes to the arts specifically, Kant defines three types of art as beautiful; the arts of speech, the formative arts, and the art of the play of sensations. In the arts of speech, he further subdivides it into rhetoric and poetry. The structure of both is quite different, but he feels that both are beautiful if they appear undesigned and have a harmony of sensibility and understanding (pg 324). The formative arts express ideas as either sensible truth or sensible illusion. Kant feels sculpture and architecture as sensible truth as they express corporal concepts of things as they might exist in nature. Sensible illusion is a property of painting as it shows concepts of things that are only possible through art using aesthetical purposiveness. The art of the play of sensations deals with how the senses react to things like a musical tone or color. These are beautiful through a balance between cognition and sensation.

Through the definitions of the beautiful arts, flaws are apparent in Kant's own theories. In dismantling the language of aesthetics, he is effectively creating a split where the concept of divine knowledge has no place. On one side, he discusses how the ‘divine truth' approach is flawed and a scientific approach around the gaps of truth through faith. Yet, Kant still believes in a universal truth and a divine knowledge that can be attained through an experience of the sublime. It seems as if he wants to maintain a middle position between both theories. By not keeping or removing God from the argument, he weakens his analysis of aesthetic language. He is not really critical of the language in his attempt not to remove God totally, leaving gaps that can be questioned. But, his faith aspect of the argument is also damaged as his critique of language is effective enough to raise questions about the validity of divine truth.