I hope I'm doing this right.

I am going to preface my post with the warning that I love Immanuel Kant. Proceed with caution.

When rereading Kant's "Critique of the Power of Judgment" and thinking of it in reference to Frankenstein I could not help but dwell on Kant's concepts of beauty, genius, and the sublime, and how those apply to Dr. Frankenstein and his creation. Kant states that "Beautiful art is the art of genius"(445). But what constitutes beauty to Kant? Kant relates the idea that something which is beautiful can be pleasing without a concept or sense of contention. If basing our further discussion on this idea, that something which is to be considered beautiful would please without fault, then the creation cannot be considered beautiful. Behind the creation, there was indeed a concept, Dr. Frankenstein's need to push the limits, and see if by going beyond normal human abilities, he could create a being. That being said, there is arguably nothing of Kantian beauty in the creature. However, Kant also states, as quoted above, that beautiful art is the art of genius. Can the monster then be considered "beautiful art" if Frankenstein's work is considered to be the art of genius, with Frankenstein functioning as the genius in question? Kant outlines the qualities a genius should possess in his Critique noting that "originality must be the primary characteristic," and that the creation of genius must be some sort of model (446). However, and this is a big however, Kant also states that the author of genius does not know how the ideas have come to him, and cannot communicate to others how to produce such genius, ultimately, that it is a "particular spirit given to a person at birth."

Of course, as in anything Kantian, this is all extremely contestable, but it is worth pointing out that if the spirit of genius, to Kant, must be given to a person at birth, then Frankenstein cannot be considered a genius, even if he possesses many of the attributes due to the fact that Frankenstein believes in the process of acquiring knowledge, and that everything he understood about the human body, and the creature he created, was learned, not bestowed upon him.

All this being said, I turn to another of Kant's ideas, possibly one that Frankenstein and his creature may be able to encompass, that of the sublime. Everything about the dynamic between creature and creator can then be deemed sublime, in that they are, ultimately, "objects on which the imagination fruitlessly expends its entire capacity for comprehension"(436) and still cannot seem to comprehend.

Pardon my rant. These ideas are undoubtedly open to interpretation, as is everything with Kant. Actually, I’m almost positive that if I read this again I will come up with a whole new outlook as the “Critique of the Power of Judgment" is endlessly thought provoking. As of right now, however, these are my thoughts.