In The Aesthetics of Qiyun and Genius: Spirit Consonance in Chinese Landscape Painting and Some Kantian Echoes, Xiaoyan Hu provides an interpretation of the notion of qiyun, or spirit consonance, in Chinese painting, and considers why creating a painting—especially a landscape painting—replete with qiyun is regarded as an art of genius, where genius is an innate mental talent. Through a comparison of the role of this innate mental disposition in the aesthetics of qiyun and Kant’s account of artistic genius, the book addresses an important feature of the Chinese aesthetic tradition, one that evades the aesthetic universality assumed by a Kantian lens. Drawing on the views of influential sixth to fourteenth-century theorists and art historians and connoisseurs, the first part explains and discusses qiyun and its conceptual development from a notion mainly applied to figure painting to one that also plays an enduring role in the aesthetics of landscape painting. In the light of Kant’s account of genius, the second part examines a range of issues regarding the role of the mind in creating a painting replete with qiyun and the impossibility of teaching qiyun. Through this comparison with Kant, Hu demystifies the uniqueness of qiyun aesthetics and also illuminates some limitations in Kant’s aesthetics. The publication of this work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (project no: 3213042202A1).

Balancing leading scholars with emerging trendsetters, this Companion offers fresh perspectives on Asian cinemas and charts new constellations in the field with significance far beyond Asian cinema studies. Asian cinema studies – at the intersection of film/media studies and area studies – has rapidly transformed under the impact of globalization, compounded by the resurgence of a variety of nationalist discourses as well as counter-discourses, new socio-political movements, and the possibilities afforded by digital media. Differentiated experiences of climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic have further heightened interest in the digital everyday and the renewed geopolitical divide between East and West, and between North and South. Thematized into six sections, the 46 chapters in this anthology address established paradigms of scholarship and viewership in Asian cinemas like extreme genres, cinephilia, festivals, and national cinema, while also highlighting political and archival concerns that firmly situate Asian cinemas within local and translocal milieus. Underrepresented cinemas of North Korea, Bangladesh, Laos, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand, and Cambodia, appear here amidst a broader cross-regional, comparative approach. An ideal resource for film, media, cultural and Asian studies researchers, students, and scholars, as well as informed readers with an interest in Asian cinemas.

Adamek provides a reading of the late 8th century Chan/Zen Buddhist Lidai fabao ji (Record of the Dharma-Jewel Through the Generations) and provides its first English translation. The work combines a history of the transmission of Buddhism and Chan in China with an account of the 8th century Chan master Wuzhu in Sichuan.

The Aesthetics of Autonomy: Ricoeur and Sartre on Emancipation, Authenticity, and Selfhood argues that, despite their differences, Sartre and Ricoeur have a similar goal. While they are both anti-essentialists, they nevertheless advocate for the notions of selfhood and autonomy. Autonomy, for them, is the end result of an aesthetic path. An identity, at the individual or collective level, is created by weaving together contingent threads of the given. In other words, identity is a narrative construct. The first two chapters focus on the respective methods of Sartre and Ricoeur. Despite their different emphases, Farhang Erfani argues that they have a similar dialectical method, between the situation and our ability to surpass it for Sartre, and between sedimentation and innovation for Ricoeur. The third chapter brings them together and shows how they can complement each other in building a narrative identity at the individual level; Ricoeur is helpful in appreciating Sartrean notions of bad faith and authenticity. The fourth and final chapter turns to collective identity; Erfani argues that Ricoeur's notions of ideology and utopia are better complemented with Sartrean political ethics. Erfani advocates for a Sartrean model of "Dark Utopianism" that overcomes the limits of Ricoeur's political philosophy. Reading Sartre and Ricoeur together provides for a balanced approach to the question of autonomy that at once pays due attention to the weight of the situation and the past, while opening up the space for change, innovation, and progress. The conclusion, accordingly, applies this thesis to the question of globalization. Both Sartre and Ricoeur scholars will be eager to explore and debate the original synthesis presented in The Aesthetics of Autonomy. It also makes contributions to hermeneutics, post-War French philosophy, and philosophy of religion. Finally, given its emphases on politics and aesthetics, the book also places itself within arguments of political theory and literary theory.

In Judgments of Beauty in Theory Evaluation, Devon Brickhouse-Bryson argues that judgments of beauty are a justified part of theory evaluation of all sorts, including both scientific theory evaluation and philosophical theory evaluation. He supports this argument with an account of beauty—inherited from Kant and Mothersill—on which the distinctive nature of judgments of beauty is that they are unprincipled, yet possible. Brickhouse-Bryson analyzes two important methods of theory evaluation—reflective equilibrium and simplicity—and argues that these methods require making judgments of beauty understood. He further argues that these methods of theory evaluation are not anomalies, but that they point to a deeper lesson about the nature of theorizing and the necessity of using judgments of beauty to evaluate systems, like theories. This book has implications for the debate in philosophy of science over judgments of beauty and also prompts a reckoning in philosophy itself over the use of judgments of beauty in philosophical theory evaluation.

Li Zehou (b. 1930) has been an influential thinker in China since the 1950s. Before moving to the U.S. in the wake of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, Li published works on Kant and traditional and contemporary Chinese philosophy. The present volume, a translation of his Huaxia meixue (1989), is considered among Li’s most significant works. Apart from its value as an introduction to the philosophy of one of contemporary China’s foremost intellectuals, The Chinese Aesthetic Tradition fills an important gap in the literature of Chinese aesthetics in English. It presents Li’s synthesis of the entire trajectory of Chinese aesthetic thought, from ancient times to the early modern period, incorporating pre-Confucian and Confucian ideas, Daoism, Chan Buddhism, and the influence of Western philosophy during the late-imperial period. As one of China’s As one of China's major contemporary philosophers and preeminent authority on Kant, Li is uniquely positioned to observe this trajectory and make it intelligible to today’s readers. The Chinese Aesthetic Tradition touches on all areas of artistic activity, including poetry, painting, calligraphy, architecture, and the "art of living." Right government, the ideal human being, and the path to spiritual transcendence all come under the provenance of aesthetic thought. According to Li this was the case from early Confucian explanations of poetry as that which gives expression to intent, through Zhuangzi’s artistic depictions of the ideal personality who discerns the natural way of things and lives according to it, to Chan Buddhist-inspired notions that nature and words can come together to yield insight and enlightenment. In this enduring and stimulating work, Li demonstrates conclusively the fundamental role of aesthetics in the development of the cultural and psychological structures in Chinese culture that define "humanity."