Preface

The current interest in Kant in the North American debate on criminal punishment arise from a deceptive hope: Kant seems as a sort of “antidote” useful to mitigate the results of correctional and merely intimidatory practice. Both the two current interpretations of his philosophy, for their typical post-modern statement, are yet improper and unproductive. Both Kant as a pioneer of so-called “limiting retributivism” and Kant theorist of “pure retributivism”, “purged” of the extreme application of the logic of jus talionis, do offer us an “antidote” that is ineffective against the justified malaise which is rampant amongst the ranks of utilitarians on the other side of the Atlantic. Rather than a genuine medicine, it seems to be a sweetener, designed perhaps to make the unconscionable logic of power more acceptable, but certainly not to limit it.     

西藏美术馆

2013年,画家韩书力举办“进藏四十年绘画展”。他在备展时发现,自己青壮年时期的许多得意之作,价格已经涨到了无力回购的地步。这种情况,不仅发生在韩书力身上,也发生在很多西藏当代画家身上。他们的艺术作品或是被入藏游客低价买走,流散到海内外,或是自生自灭,踪迹难寻。这让韩书力意识到,必须要为西藏当代绘画作品提供一个良好的归宿。