the Kantian aesthetic judgment as a perlocutionary speech act suggests so as well. I also think Derrida has this in mind when, in the Truth in Painting , he refers to the "discursivity in the structure of the beautiful." Indeed, for Kant, what one judges in the pure judgment of taste is less the object or even the feeling of pleasure that follows its judging, but rather the communicability of that feeling. And, as Hannah Arendt argues, for Kant communicability quite explicitly means "speech." Could you tell us more about what Schlegel had to say about the interesting? Is there an overlap between the interesting and the ironic? In a 1797 essay called "On the Origins of Greek Poetry," Schlegel explicitly sets the interesting, which he associates with the literature of modernity, in direct opposition to the beautiful poetry of the Greeks. While die schne Poesie is objectively rule-bound, universal, and disinterested, die interessante Poesie is subjective and idiosyncratic, open to interminable particularization because no laws govern its determination by any content in particular. So here is the historical link between the maker of interesting art and the figure of the romantic ironist: both are defined by the lack of attachment to any particular worldview, and thus by an ability to "take on any subject-matter or artistic style" (as Hegel put it, negatively -- he was not a fan of irony, nor of the Schlegels). In a way that may come as a surprise to many, the aesthetic of the